Yeah. So your point is that objectivity is a myth and therefore moral objectivity is too, right? So why tack on a contradictory bit about how to make morality objective at all?popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:18 amI am afraid your babbling here, for not only meaning but thought itself is the property of the subject, not the object. As in a shell game the prize would be under all the shells, one cannot lose with subjectivity, without it there is no object, no prize, no objective world. The only way morality can be made objective is for the subject to create it in the outer world/object, in the form of the manifestation of systems and structures, the biological extensions of the values held in subjective consciousness.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:15 pmIn which case there is no point in referencing the topic of universal subjectivity, nobody needs to care about it.popeye1945 wrote: All these contingencies are still the property of the subject, you are inferring that the physical relations of the outside world change the essence of meaning, this is not so. All inflections of meaning still belong to the subject, never the object.
The fact remains that there is a subjectivity inherent to some sorts of question such as "which is nicer X or Y" and that form of subjectivity is not present in questions for which we can all look at the sky, or under a stone to find an asnwer.
So your claim that it's subjective just because everything is subjective fails to account for the ways in which morality might be subjective in which not everything is subjective. Which it is.
We have a concept of objectivity that applies to certain things such as emprical observations etc, and we have this concept of subjectivity that applies to daydreams and opinions about which is the best colour. And we have reason for making such distinction.
The question of whether moral precepts can be seen as objective within these terms is interesting. The argument that nothing at all is objective is boring.