This is a philosophical forum thus the philosophical [open-ended questioning] meaning and deliberation of the term 'objectivity' must prevail.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:20 am I'm not 'trying to be rhetorical'. I'm explaining what we mean by the words 'objective' and 'objectivity', which is what a dictionary definition tries to do.
To say it doesn't do it accurately or subtly enough - with enough nuance - seems to suggest there is some abstract thing - let's imagine it means something to say it's a 'concept' - which we call 'objectivity' and which we can more or less inaccurately describe - and that 'philosophy' describes it more accurately - or with more refinement - than a dictionary does or can.
But this is the ancient metaphysical delusion at work - as it is in the strange idea that 'good', 'bad', 'evil', 'right' and 'wrong' are somehow (if only abstractly) things which can therefore be real properties - factual predicates in descriptions of people, things and actions. Words mean what we use them to mean, and can mean nothing else. To assert or deny that so-called abstract things such as objectivity exist is to mistake an abstract noun for a thing that therefore may or may not exist. (Plato's Socrates on 'the good'' or 'justice'.) We've been mired in this delusion for centuries.
Note the essence of the philosophical consideration of the term 'objectivity' is this;
1. Objectivity is fundamentally inter-subjective consensus.
2. There is a continuum and degrees to 'objectivity' relative to its method of verification.
Scientific facts has the highest degree of objectivity but it essentially is reduced to the consensus of subjects, i.e. the scientists as peers within the scientific community.
The fact that Pluto was a full planet, is a small dwarf planet and likely to be a full planet again is up to the consensus of scientists [based on justified arguments] within the astronomy community.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 110422.htm
Mathematical axioms are also objective, i.e. true and independent of any human subjective opinion.
On the other end of the continuum of objectivity, it is an objective knowledge, Nia Franklin is the winner of the 2019 Miss America pageant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_America_2019
But note the fundamental of this objective knowledge is based on intersubjective consensus of appointed judges' subjective judgments.
Thus the determining factor of objectivity is intersubjective consensus which obviously be related to something provable.
With the slightest acceptance, I agree god = objective morality, i.e. it is based on intersubjective consensus and independent of the individual views and opinion.End of digression. Point is, your prescription - consistently with what I understand of your argument - remains confused:
The moral principles we've established and are developing are value-judgements - decisions about what SHOULD BE the case - and can't be facts about what IS the case. So moral principles can't be objective - matters of fact independent of opinion, individual or collective.It would be from this more refined perspective that we will establish objective moral principles as abstracted from empirical evidences.
"Establish' mean humanity must work on it since there are no ontological pre-existing objective moral principles like those forced upon theists by a God [illusory].
Some theists jump up and down screaming 'nihilism...moral anarchy...', because they're determined to peddle their 'no god = no morality, god = objective morality' nonsense. But they misunderstand objectivity - and the nature of morality. Recognising the necessary subjectivity of moral value-judgements is the key to demolishing theistic moral objectivism and the derived argument for the existence of a god.
Re the continuum of objectivity, I will rate this as 5/100 in contrast to 80/100 of scientific theories.
The problem with theistic morality is, it is grounded on the idea of God which is illusory and thus groundless.
I admit the theistic moral model grounded on God has utility to humanity but it has its very terrible negative side effects to humanity.
Unfortunately at present there are no formalized secular moral model to contrast the formalized theistic moral model which admittedly is useful to a degree but has its negative side effects.
Thus we need to establish a fool proof moral and ethics models based on secular principles.
Fortunately based on evidence and existing trend there is an implied moral drive and system within the individuals working collectively towards higher and moral/ethical methods.
This is why I have proposed a formalized Secular Moral Model [Kantian guided] which is driven by absolute objective moral principles abstracted and grounded on empirical evidence. This secular moral model which is dynamic will be more effective than the groundless theological moral model with its side effects of evil.