Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 4:36 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:56 pm
seeds wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:00 pm
Yes, I see a problem.
And the problem lies in the wrongness of the assertion that there is no such thing as objectivity.
_______
Agreed. But also, we can't consistently both reject and invoke a distinction. If there's no such thing as objectivity, saying everything is subjective is meaningless.
This is just arguing from adverse consequences. ALl objective statements are only relative to the criteria upon which they are made. It is perfectly reasonable that having established such criteria statements may be measured against such criteria, yet the criteria are always subject to argumentation; every thing is in fact subjective when moral values are concerned.
I'd put it like this: any description - and so any truth-claim - is contextual and conventional. It's always 'given the way we use these signs in this context'. But this is trivially true and inconsequential - and it doesn't undermine the possibility of what we call objectivity: reliance or dependence on facts.
Since we can clearly identify the source of a subjective statement, we can reasonably say that such as statement is subject to the interests of a particular subject. THough there may be elements of truth in in you have to ask where would the objective stem from.
We cannot similarly identify the source of any statement claimed as being objective.
Instead we are forced to marshal a series of criteria upon which to judge the objectivity of a statement. But there can be no final judgement or source of a completely objective criterion upon which to determine objectivity.
I don't think the objective/subjective distinction is to do with the source of the assertion. Instead, it's to do with its function: to assert something about reality that may or may not be the case; or to express a value-judgement or opinion. So 'water is H2O' is a factual assertion with a truth-value; but 'abortion is morally wrong' expresses an opinion and has no factual truth-value - which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.
No source can be objective. We can nominate a source as objective such as a machine or measure of some kind but we are continually forced to ask what value such a choice is. Upon what grounds could such a judgement be made and in doing so how would you avoid the subjectiveness of any judge or judges.
As above, I think your approach to the issue is mistaken.
These discussions come up all the time. And never have I seen an objectivist make a claim which is defensible.
If you think an objective statement of a moral nature is objective then please make that statement; defend it; and say why the objections to it are invalid on objective grounds!
No, I agree with you that morality can't be objective, because there are no moral facts. But I disagree with you about the possibility of objectivity, because there are what we call facts: features of reality that are or were the case - such as the chemical constitution of water.