[quote="Veritas Aequitas"
Basically, the term 'objectivity' is to reflect the confidence level of how realistic a knowledge claim is.
If there are various claims the Sun is 150, 500, 1000 million miles from Earth.
Surely the first thing, if you are rational, would want to know whether the above is subjective or objective knowledge. [/quote]
All knowledge is subjective, if you were driving a very big truck and a consensus of locals told you the bridge you need to cross was perfectly safe for all truck traffic. Nevertheless, your subjectivity is telling you this bridge doesn't look like it could support a number of people never mind the tonnage you were driving, which do you think would win out. Would you drive fearlessly across said bridge? The local evaluation is objective knowledge, isn't it? Subjective knowledge is going to win out every time your butt is on the line.
As is quite well known, the above claims 150, 500, 1000 million miles are identified as
subjective claims by different subjects based on their person judgments or from unreliable sources. The scientific knowledge is the Sun is Appx 93 million miles from Earth.
Surely you would NOT classify this scientific claim as a subjective claim like the above.
As such to differentiate the reliability and credibility of the scientific knowledge, it is generally identified as 'OBJECTIVE' knowledge as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
This is a common practice, why do you want to resist it without any sound basis at all? [/quote]
While in the case above there is no subjective experience to come into play, there is just trust in authority, in hearsay. Here you are assuming others know better than you. It is very thin ice from a subjective perspective and depends upon the level of trust in the experiences of the past with this particular authority.
This scientific objectivity is ultimately reinforced by intersubjective agreement [intersubjectivity] within the relevant peers.
Without this condition of intersubjectivity, no thesis will be recognized as an objective scientific theory, truth or knowledge.
Because it is accepted by peers, it is independent of the individual scientist judgment or belief, thus objective via intersubjectivity.
E.g. the theory of relativity is objective, not because Einstein said so, but because Science [Physics FSK] said so. [/quote]
This is still trust in authority well founded as it may be. It is the collective subjective of like biologizes concerning an experience the subject has not had in order to have subjective knowledge of the case of point. TRUST!
Harping on the term subjective and subjectivity will not generate confidence levels for others to rely upon it to generate utilities.
This is why the term 'objectivity' [via intersubjectivity] is critical to identify the knowledge is reliable as derived from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
As I had stated, whatever is an objective fact must be conditioned upon a credible FSK, e.g. the scientific FSK being the most credible at present.
Then we have a credible moral FSK which rely on its input from the scientific FSK, objective moral fact are derived from the moral FSK with reasonable degree of objectivity.
[/quote]
It is trust in the collective subject evaluation as it is instituted. I don't think we really disagree here, but personal subjectivity will always trump the collective if there is a great deal at stake for the individual. Trust will only carry one so far, our personal subjectivity is the individual's survival mode and the measure and meaning of all things. The topic above though is misleading, for the question asks HOW morality becomes objectified and the only possible answer is morality in whatever structure or forms it might take is biological extension, an expression of humanities subjective nature, the subject manifests his sentiments in outward creations.