Morality: Objectivity on a Continuum

[Veritas Aequitas]

There is a lot of fuss from many when I put Objectivity in term of degrees on a continuum say from 0.0001% to 99.9999%.

ALL of reality is continuous and never discrete.
As such, we can apply the continuum concept to any variable within reality, i.e. things, events, objectivity, subjectivity, evil, good, any other dichotomy, etc.

The concept of continuum is and can be adopted with the following;
1. The Bell Curve or Normal Distribution
2. The Yin and Yang Model
3. All other aspects of reality?

0.00001 Objective is 99.99999 Subjectivity
0.00001 Subjectivity is 99.9999 Objectivity

0.00001 White is 99.99999% Black
0.00001 Black is 99.9999% White
thus
we have grey
0.5 White is 0.5 Black
which avoid the contentious Law of the excluded Middle.

In certain areas where there is a very distinct dichotomy, bringing the variables involved to a common denominator is definitely an efficient approach to resolve issues more realistically.
A common denominator will also facilitate analysis and computations.

As such, putting 'objectivity' on a continuum is very useful in resolving the issues related to objectivity in certain contexts; for that matter, it is efficient as putting subjectivity in a continuum.

When one insist upon the Law of the Excluded Middle of 'either p or not-p' people, one is assuming the existence of absoluteness i.e. either 100% say black or 100% white, but a 100% perfection is impossible in the empirical world.

What is critical in the above is one must lay out the specific contexts in using a continuum.

In the case of objective;
What is objective [in degrees] is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
For any conclusion to be considered as objective, it must be logically valid within the conditions of the specific FSK.

There is no exclusivity to objectivity in a continuum.
I can rate the FSK's in terms of subjectivity, i.e. the scientific FSK subjectivity is the standard at 0.001% while the Christianity moral FSK is at 99.999%.
Since the opposite of subjectivity is objectivity, we can substitute 'objectivity' to the above in reverse order.

Generally, objectivity is the more serious variable thus I had focused my attention of 'objectivity' in most of the threads I raised.

I believe why my putting objectivity on a continuum generate such a big fuss is purely psychological due to cognitive dissonances, because to many what is "objective" refers to a mind-independent reality with the duality element of either yes or no.

See:
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Discuss?? Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[phyllo]

Your numbers are completely subjective because you have no objective measure of the amount of objectivity/subjectivity in anything.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your numbers are completely subjective because you have no objective measure of the amount of objectivity/subjectivity in anything.

Last time he addressed that issue, I shit you not, he decided he had fixed it by allowing a 5% margin of error either way.

[Skepdick]

Your numbers are completely subjective because you have no objective measure of the amount of objectivity/subjectivity in anything.

Last time he addressed that issue, I shit you not, he decided he had fixed it by allowing a 5% margin of error either way.

So, just to be clear....

You are necessarily saying that at no point in your reasoning has an implication was made that more objectivity (less objectivity) would be better?

At no point have you made claims that objectivity resolves conflicting claims; and that resolving moral conflict would be better?

You really want to ride that non-existent fence while holding the bowling ball of preferences all at the same time.

[Skepdick]

Your numbers are completely subjective because you have no objective measure of the amount of objectivity/subjectivity in anything.

Ignoring the numbers.

Would you say that morality (if it were to be objective) would be qualitative better; or worse than a subjective morality?

[phyllo]

An objective morality is better because it has the potential of establishing a correct set of values and behaviors. One could know if one is acting in the most beneficial way or not.

It would still be possible to choose to act in a suboptimal way.

[Skepdick]

An objective morality is better because it has the potential of establishing a correct set of values and behaviors. One could know if one is acting in the most beneficial way or not.

It would still be possible to choose to act in a suboptimal way.

How are you making these judgments?

What framework of betterness and most/least beneficence are you invoking?

Sure seems you have a sense of direction for which way is right and which way is wrong.

[phyllo]

I could have posted an objective judgement or subjective judgement.

I didn't give any reasoning for why I was speaking objectively or subjectively.

But the general nature of your question and the trend in this place suggested that you wanted a subjective opinion.

[Skepdick]

I could have posted an objective judgement or subjective judgement.

I didn't give any reasoning for why I was speaking objectively or subjectively.

But the general nature of your question and the trend in this place suggested that you wanted a subjective opinion.

The general nature of the question suggests that you have an a priori notion of better and worse.

Wired in your brain. Irrespective of what numbers you assign to them.

[phyllo]

Since I didn't pop into existence a second ago, tabula rasa, obviously my thinking was some direction.

[Skepdick]

Since I didn't pop into existence a second ago, tabula rasa, obviously my thinking was some direction.

Which has what to do with anything?

I am pointing at the rather particular fact about your thinking. The fact that you think objective is better than subjective morality.

Not merely different. Better.

What do you base such judgments upon?

[phyllo]

If you know how to correctly build a birdhouse, then you can choose to build it correctly or incorrectly.

If you don't know how, then it is not clear what you are building. Or if you will end up with a birdhouse at all.

Knowing appears to give you more options and chances for success.

The only counter seems to be ... Ignorance is bliss.

[Iwannaplato]

Your numbers are completely subjective because you have no objective measure of the amount of objectivity/subjectivity in anything.

Last time he addressed that issue, I shit you not, he decided he had fixed it by allowing a 5% margin of error either way.

Oh, but it's a logical conclusion because it's based on the VA FSK. It's objective, somewhere on the continuum.

[Iwannaplato]

Your numbers are completely subjective because you have no objective measure of the amount of objectivity/subjectivity in anything.

Phyllo, you are making a fuss.
Try starting a lot of threads on the same topic. That is, on the continuum of making a fuss to not making a fuss, far towards the latter.
You don't want to be seen as fussy.