Degrees of Objectivity & Morality

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have already argued there are degrees of Objectivity on a continuum and Morality is on the higher percentile within the continuum.

Here is a clue to the degree of Objective [from a quick search].

Hi . I am Sage - a bot powered by OpenAI's ChatGPT.
You can talk to me about anything, ranging from writing code to deciding what to cook for dinner. I can also chat in languages other than English.

Are there degrees of objectivity, and if so, what are they?

Yes, there are degrees of objectivity. Objectivity can be thought of as the degree to which a statement, belief, or observation is free from personal bias or interpretation.

Absolute objectivity: This refers to statements, beliefs, or observations that are completely free from personal bias or interpretation. They are based on facts that can be independently verified and are considered to be true in all situations and for all people.

Relative objectivity: This refers to statements, beliefs, or observations that are based on facts that can be independently verified, but may be influenced by personal bias or interpretation. These statements are considered to be true in most situations and for most people, but may not be universally accepted.

Subjectivity: This refers to statements, beliefs, or observations that are based on personal bias or interpretation and cannot be independently verified. These statements are considered to be true only for the person making them and may not be universally accepted.

It's important to note that objectivity is often a matter of degree and different people may have different perspectives on the same subject. Additionally, it's important to consider the context in which information is presented, as well as the expertise and credibility of the source.

Tell me more
Sure! I can provide some additional information on the degrees of objectivity.

Absolute objectivity is often associated with scientific facts and principles, which are based on empirical evidence and can be independently verified through observation and experimentation. For example, the laws of physics are considered to be objectively true because they are based on measurable phenomena and have been consistently observed and tested over time.

Relative objectivity is often associated with social and cultural phenomena, which are influenced by personal bias and interpretation but can still be objectively studied and analyzed. For example, a sociologist studying the impact of social media on communication patterns may be influenced by their own personal biases, but can still objectively analyze patterns of behavior and communication to draw conclusions.

Subjectivity is often associated with personal opinions and beliefs that are not based on objective facts or evidence. For example, a person's preference for a particular type of music or food is subjective because it is based on personal taste and cannot be independently verified.

It's important to note that while absolute objectivity may be difficult to achieve in many situations, striving for objectivity is still important in fields such as journalism, science, and academia. This involves being aware of personal biases and striving to present information in a fair and unbiased manner. Additionally, understanding the degree of objectivity of a particular statement or belief can help individuals critically evaluate information and make informed decisions.

Can you give an example of a situation where relative objectivity is important?

Sure, one example of a situation where relative objectivity is important is in the field of psychology. Psychology is the study of human behavior and mental processes, and researchers in this field often study subjective experiences such as emotions, thoughts, and perceptions.

While psychological research is based on empirical evidence and scientific principles, subjective experiences are inherently personal and can be influenced by a variety of factors, such as culture, upbringing, and personal history. As a result, psychological research often involves studying relative objectivity, or the degree to which subjective experiences can be objectively studied and analyzed.

For example, a psychologist studying the effects of a particular therapy on patients with depression may collect data on patients' self-reported levels of depression before and after treatment. While these self-reports are subjective and may be influenced by personal biases, they can still be objectively measured and analyzed to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the therapy.

Similarly, a psychologist studying the impact of cultural factors on mental health may be influenced by their own cultural biases, but can still objectively analyze data on cultural differences in mental health outcomes to draw conclusions.

In both of these examples, relative objectivity is important because it allows researchers to study subjective experiences in a rigorous and systematic way, while still acknowledging the influence of personal biases and interpretations.

More Questions and Answer:
Can you give an example of a study that involves relative objectivity in psychology?

How do psychologists ensure that their personal biases don't affect their research?

What are some limitations of studying subjective experiences in psychology?

https://poe.com/Sage

From the above, one can infer from the degree of objectivity as applicable to the various FSKs depending on the credibility, reliability of the specific human based FSKs.

See: How To Compute Degrees of Objectivity
viewtopic.php?p=676435#p676435

Views:

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

• Consequent judgments are objective or subjective to varying degrees, and we divide reality into objective reality and subjective reality. Thus, it is important to distinguish the various uses of the terms “objective” and “subjective.”
  https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

________________________

Objectivity in Degrees
in
The View from Nowhere - Thomas Nagel

Page 5
Though I shall for convenience often speak of two standpoints, the subjective and the objective, and though the various places in which this opposition is found have much in common, the distinction between more subjective and more objective views is really a matter of degree, and it covers a wide spectrum.

A view or form of thought is more objective than another if it relies less on the specifics of the individual's makeup and position in the world, or on the character of the particular type of creature he is.

The wider the range of subjective types to which a form of understanding is accessible - the less it depends on specific subjective capacities - the more objective it is.

A standpoint that is objective by comparison with the personal view of one individual may be subjective by comparison with a theoretical standpoint still farther out.

The standpoint of morality is more objective than that of private life, but less objective than the standpoint of physics.

We may think of reality as a set of concentric spheres, progressively revealed as we detach gradually from the contingencies of the self.
This will become clearer when we discuss the interpretation of objectivity in relation to specific areas of life and understanding.

[Harbal]

Views:

There are also degrees of lunacy, and yours is fast approaching absolute.

[Iwannaplato]

I have already argued there are degrees of Objectivity on a continuum and Morality is on the higher percentile within the continuum.

Higher than what?

Why not use intersubjectivity, which seems to be the actual definition of 'objectivity' in your system?

As long as any group of people arrive at a conclusion about what is true, you call that conclusion objective.

IOW it is not one person deciding. It is not merely subjective, it is intersubjective.

If they are astrologers, psychologists, nazis, physicists, positive thinkers, dowsers, whatever, their conclusions are intersubjective.

I don't see why you use the word objective, ESPECIALLY given that you are an antirealist.

Generally anti-realisms are more instrumentalist. In science, say, atoms and subatomic particles may or may not exists, but if the theory works and predictive, fine. The antirealists aren't interested in the objects, just in predictive value, heuristic value. They think the realists go to far when they think they can describe what objects actually are like or even if they exist.

It is a moving away from objectivity. And I do not mean that in a pejorative sense.

Does it work and do other people find that it works when following our protocols. That's intersubjective aggreement and an intersubjective criterion. It's what happens not correspondance. What a group of minds experience.

I doubt you have a group that would agree that science, nazism, satanism, buddhism, astrology are all objective. Without that group your position is merely subjective along the lines of your own criteria.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I often get mocked [from those who are ignorant] when I mentioned 'degrees of objectivity'.
Here is another supporter of 'degrees of objectivity' from Thomas Nagel.

Objectivity in Degrees
in
The View from Nowhere - Thomas Nagel

Page 5
Though I shall for convenience often speak of two standpoints, the subjective and the objective, and though the various places in which this opposition is found have much in common, the distinction between more subjective and more objective views is really a matter of degree, and it covers a wide spectrum.

A view or form of thought is more objective than another if it relies less on the specifics of the individual's makeup and position in the world, or on the character of the particular type of creature he is.

The wider the range of subjective types to which a form of understanding is accessible - the less it depends on specific subjective capacities - the more objective it is.

A standpoint that is objective by comparison with the personal view of one individual may be subjective by comparison with a theoretical standpoint still farther out.

The standpoint of morality is more objective than that of private life, but less objective than the standpoint of physics.

We may think of reality as a set of concentric spheres, progressively revealed as we detach gradually from the contingencies of the self.
This will become clearer when we discuss the interpretation of objectivity in relation to specific areas of life and understanding.

At present, I am rereading 'The View from Nowhere" and will present more info therefrom related to objectivity vs subjectivity.

[Iwannaplato]

I often get mocked [from those who are ignorant] when I mentioned 'degrees of objectivity'.

That may well be true, but no one here did. Harbal mocked you in general and I didn't mock you, but rather asked some reasonable and respectful questions.

Here is another supporter of 'degrees of objectivity' from Thomas Nagel.

Nagel is great. I love his critique of Materialist Neo-Darwinian ideas nature. That said, I think it would be better to go with intersubjectivity, or rigorous intersubjectivity, instead of objectivity. I wouldn't mock him, but I'm sure he has to put up with some degree of mocking. I certainly wouldn't call him a philosophical gnat clinging to traditional default categories.

Here's another take on why. Objective means impersonal and unbiased, at least at root.

And the word objective means
object (n.)
late 14c., "tangible thing, something perceived with or presented to the senses," from Old French object and directly from Medieval Latin obiectum "thing put before" (the mind or sight), noun use of neuter of Latin obiectus "lying before, opposite" (as a noun in classical Latin, "charges, accusations"), past participle of obicere "to present, oppose, cast in the way of," from ob "in front of, towards, against" (see ob-) + iacere "to throw" (from PIE root *ye- "to throw, impel").

Presented. Thing put before the mind. The term come rolling right out of realism.

Probably would be even better to drop intersubjectivity, and leave both terms behind.

Inter-empirical, perhaps.

If one is really interested in getting past evolutionary defaults, it would likely be good to leave behind categories that not only imply realism, but even a dualism.

I do understand the appeal of 'objective' since it is like a good seal of approval. But that's actually a problem, for antirealists anyway. You'd want a neutral term, not one that is neither pejorative nor complimentary.

And also one that focuses on the second face of objectivity, which is precisely NOT focused on objects, but rather on methodological rigor.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here's another take on why.
Objective means impersonal and unbiased, at least at root.

And the word objective means
object (n.)
late 14c., "tangible thing, something perceived with or presented to the senses," from Old French object and directly from Medieval Latin obiectum "thing put before" (the mind or sight), noun use of neuter of Latin obiectus "lying before, opposite" (as a noun in classical Latin, "charges, accusations"), past participle of obicere "to present, oppose, cast in the way of," from ob "in front of, towards, against" (see ob-) + iacere "to throw" (from PIE root *ye- "to throw, impel").

Presented. Thing put before the mind. The term come rolling right out of realism.

Probably would be even better to drop intersubjectivity, and leave both terms behind.

Inter-empirical, perhaps.

If one is really interested in getting past evolutionary defaults, it would likely be good to leave behind categories that not only imply realism, but even a dualism.

I do understand the appeal of 'objective' since it is like a good seal of approval. But that's actually a problem, for antirealists anyway. You'd want a neutral term, not one that is neither pejorative nor complimentary.

And also one that focuses on the second face of objectivity, which is precisely NOT focused on objects, but rather on methodological rigor.

The root or origin can be critical and lend support to its current meaning of word, but it is not the case with the term 'objective'.

Note this, from,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

• Objective:
  
  1 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
  -objective art
  -an objective history of the war
  -an objective judgment
  
  1b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
  -Each question on the objective test requires the selection of the correct answer from among several choices.
  
  2 a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
  -objective reality
  … our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world.
  —Marvin Reznikoff
  compare SUBJECTIVE sense 3a
  
  2b : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
  -objective awareness
  -objective data
  
  2c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual
  -objective arthritis
  -compare SUBJECTIVE sense 4c
  
  2d : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
  
  3 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
  -The pronoun her is in the objective case in the sentence "I saw her."

The present meaning is in 1a and 1b above which is intersubjective [shared within a collective of subjects] within a human-based FSR-FSK.

Meaning 2a is related to philosophical realism, i.e. the claim of a mind-independent objective reality.

Meanwhile your proposed above is related to medieval philosophy as in 2d which is outdated.
This is a neutral stance with no consideration of either p-realism nor anti-p-realism.
If we are to inject philosophy elements into it, then it is by default 'realism'.

Since the term 'objectivity' is used so ubiquitously, it has to be conditioned upon a collective of human subjects, i.e. intersubjective.

Even for realists, the term 'objective' which refer to an independent objective reality, that is ultimately conditioned by a group of realists, i.e. a collective of subjects.
So even for realists, the term 'objective' as defined is ultimately intersubjective.

[Iwannaplato]

One can approach realists and say, no these things are also objective because in fact objectivity is intersubjective and.....etc. And then have two kinds of objectivity and degrees of objectivity. But in the end one is using terms that were created out of a realism. If you stick with intersubjectivity or, even better, interempirical, you avoid all that baggage. The focus is on process, methodology, rigor and reproducibility - and that last becomes
'do others have the same experiences when they do the same or simiilar things?

And then as an anti-realist or pragmatist you don't have to wander into the now seriously problematic area of saying your experience isn't in response to something external or real. Mine is, because I have other people who also find it.

That's realism.

We can simply say that so far your experiences are not interempirical. So, you may run into problems when dealing with others and also future experiences.

Some people's so-called delusions have turned out to be in fact correct interpretations of their experiences.

We can't rule out these things being real, and there is no reason to. And as an antirealist, it's using the first face of objectivity in a metaphysical realism sort of way.

So, if we go back to the original conflict with PH, the goal need not be 'morals are ALSO objective, cause what you call facts aren't what you think they are.' But rather 'there is no objective, but rather interempirical'.