[jango1985]

No. Objectivity is not about a consensus of all, but evidence that is in principle available to all.

Objectivity is the belief by someone that their opinion is right; on its most fundamental level coincidentally no different than a religious belief. Now objectivity tries to compete the two ideas to find the "best" and the winner is determined by universe or so we ascribe, this is the only test, otherwise its just a he said, she said. Objectivity is more like he said, she said then it escalated to physical(loaded phrase).

That misunderstands the scientific method, which does not purport to PRESENT objective truth but only to SEEK it. Real empirical scientists -- i.e., not AGW climate "scientists" -- always hold their views tentatively. The exception is mathematicians, who do offer objective certainty.

So I am tentatively correct, or am I wrong? I will admit I definitely oversimplified the scientific method but it doesn't effect my overall statement I just didn't want to write two more paragraphs getting it right.

We have to be clear on the difference between competition (vying to surpass rivals), conflict (pursuing interests incompatible with those of rivals), and combat (trying to harm rivals).

The difference between all those definitions is in degree only and I don't argue the merit of having words for different severity but that does not mean they are not forms of competition.

[Zamuel]

Objectivity is the belief by someone that their opinion is right; on its most fundamental level coincidentally no different than a religious belief.

I've kinda been waiting for someone to get this far ... The key element is the difference between belief (which is an expression of hope) and faith (which is an expression of knowledge). Objective morality -is- based on faith (which can be expressed in many formats, not just religiously). The common problem lies in the extension of THAT morality to belief.

Zam

[Truth To Power]

No. Objectivity is not about a consensus of all, but evidence that is in principle available to all.

Objectivity is the belief by someone that their opinion is right;

No it isn't. Get a better dictionary. You are just using a perfectly ordinary English word incorrectly.

on its most fundamental level coincidentally no different than a religious belief.

As above.

Now objectivity tries to compete the two ideas to find the "best" and the winner is determined by universe or so we ascribe, this is the only test, otherwise its just a he said, she said. Objectivity is more like he said, she said then it escalated to physical(loaded phrase).

I'll let you know if I ever figure out what you were trying to say, there.

That misunderstands the scientific method, which does not purport to PRESENT objective truth but only to SEEK it. Real empirical scientists -- i.e., not AGW climate "scientists" -- always hold their views tentatively. The exception is mathematicians, who do offer objective certainty.

So I am tentatively correct, or am I wrong?

You are disputing with me, so you are definitely wrong.

I will admit I definitely oversimplified the scientific method but it doesn't effect my overall statement I just didn't want to write two more paragraphs getting it right.

I'm a little more fastidious.

We have to be clear on the difference between competition (vying to surpass rivals), conflict (pursuing interests incompatible with those of rivals), and combat (trying to harm rivals).

The difference between all those definitions is in degree only

Nonsense.

and I don't argue the merit of having words for different severity but that does not mean they are not forms of competition.

Yes, well, consensual coitus and jailhouse bitch rape are both forms of sex...

[Aether]

The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability.

Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

That's what objectivity means. Nothing really to do with someone believing that their opinion is right. Objective morality, similarly, is morality which is true regardless of personal perspective.

Could a proponent of objective morality give an example of a moral value or judgement which has existed throughout history, unchanged and always true?

[kobe]

Truth to Power decided to ignore my post where his ideas are exposed as cultural relativism and not objective morality. Wonder why.

[Zamuel]

Could a proponent of objective morality give an example of a moral value or judgement which has existed throughout history, unchanged and always true?

Not a new question ... last time around I proposed the sanctity of a child (an unrealized existential potential) as an example. And, I postulate that the obvious exceptions are explained by coercive abnormality, a minor fluctuation in statistical analysis of human behavior.

Truth to Power decided to ignore my post where his ideas are exposed as cultural relativism and not objective morality. Wonder why.

Obviously because "u da man" kobe ... "u da man..."

Zam

[Hong Wu]

The truth is that people can disagree over what's objective. For example, as a starting point we might say that the desire to live could be treated as an objective value. But does that extend to reproduction? And how do you deal with people who won't admit that they desire to live? So fundamentally, any objective truth needs to reach back to a belief in God or some supernatural thing that can be agreed upon as a starting point.

If your starting point is not held beyond reproach (one of the functions of a supernatural belief) then it is open to quibbling.

[kobe]

Exactly. Since god doesn't exist, there is no objective morality.

[Hong Wu]

I'm not saying it doesn't exist of course ;P I am saying that it cannot be agreed upon as existing unless we share a belief in the supernatural. I also think that without such a belief it is impossible to make generally agreed upon laws and other social constructs since they will all be based upon things viewed as subjective and therefore they would be considered flawed.

[Zamuel]

Exactly. Since god doesn't exist, there is no objective morality.

"He Shoots, He Scores ... Whooops, wrong basket ! should be - "there is no supernatural." God, if you wish to define it that way ... is the epitome of nature. but ... "u da man"

Zam

[kobe]

I'm not saying it doesn't exist of course ;P I am saying that it cannot be agreed upon as existing unless we share a belief in the supernatural. I also think that without such a belief it is impossible to make generally agreed upon laws and other social constructs since they will all be based upon things viewed as subjective and therefore they would be considered flawed.

I don't disagree. This has always been my opinion. I want there to be an objective morality, but dreams don't align with reality.

I don't think this prevents people from treating each other well, because I think that once we agree that morality is subjective, we can come to a consensus on how we should act based upon universality rather than tradition.

[Zamuel]

I think that once we agree that morality is subjective, we can come to a consensus on how we should act based upon universality rather than tradition.

Of course we can! If morality is strictly subjective, coercion becomes acceptable, genocide is justifiable, consensus goose steps right behind the guy with the biggest stick ...

Zam

[Hong Wu]

I don't disagree. This has always been my opinion. I want there to be an objective morality, but dreams don't align with reality.

I don't think this prevents people from treating each other well, because I think that once we agree that morality is subjective, we can come to a consensus on how we should act based upon universality rather than tradition.

We agree on more than I thought we would, but what is universal? Isn't that just another word for objective? I doubt anything is universal. This is why I talked about the desire to live as a starting point. People would not be able to agree whether the desire to reproduce is part of the desire to live, so even if we ignore the people who say they don't want to live, we still have some very significant policy differences right out the gate.

I personally believe in the supernatural and I think a lot of the consensus we had in the past was that people who didn't believe it were willing to recognize the utility of letting others believe in it. Now that we don't the west is rudderless and dissolving against Islam and China.

[kobe]

Of course we can! If morality is strictly subjective, coercion becomes acceptable, genocide is justifiable, consensus goose steps right behind the guy with the biggest stick ...

That has been true anyway, even when everyone believed in objective morality. Religion didn't stop people in the past from doing any of those things. Might makes right is true regardless.

We agree on more than I thought we would, but what is universal? Isn't that just another word for objective? I doubt anything is universal.

I guess that was a bad way to put it. What I mean is that you can develop a subjective system of ethics based around treating everyone well. That seems to be the basis of religion anyway.

However, this is not possible without getting rid of economic exploitation, in my view.

This is why I talked about the desire to live as a starting point. People would not be able to agree whether the desire to reproduce is part of the desire to live, so even if we ignore the people who say they don't want to live, we still have some very significant policy differences right out the gate.

I think you hit on this, but there are some people who think it is inherently wrong to bring children into the world. Antinatalists have a point, too.

I personally believe in the supernatural and I think a lot of the consensus we had in the past was that people who didn't believe it were willing to recognize the utility of letting others believe in it. Now that we don't the west is rudderless and dissolving against Islam and China.

There is utility in supernatural beliefs, but I think that you confuse the objection to religion for most people. The problem isn't so much the belief, but the imposition of belief, and the application of irrational beliefs as foundation for policy decision. As far as China is concerned, they are much more atheist than the US but are able to substitute subservience to the party/state for religion.

[Truth To Power]

Truth to Power decided to ignore my post where his ideas are exposed as cultural relativism and not objective morality. Wonder why. ;)

Are you blind? I demolished you. See the last post on p 3. If anything, I am guilty of overkill.

Objective morality, similarly, is morality which is true regardless of personal perspective.

Could a proponent of objective morality give an example of a moral value or judgement which has existed throughout history, unchanged and always true?

Objective morality doesn't necessarily mean immutable morality. Rather, it's morality that depends on objective conditions, not subjective preferences or values. I gave the example of polygyny, which was moral in hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding societies because the economic relationships in those societies make polygyny an effective genetic selection factor. In settled agricultural societies, OTOH, polygyny becomes maladaptive and thus immoral, because resources go only to those who own the land, not to those who are most productive or possess any other kind of gene-moderated merit. So polygyny becomes objectively immoral based on that change in objective economic conditions.

[kobe]

Yeah, just like you demolished anthropogenic global warming.

[Truth To Power]

I personally believe in the supernatural and I think a lot of the consensus we had in the past was that people who didn't believe it were willing to recognize the utility of letting others believe in it. Now that we don't the west is rudderless and dissolving against Islam and China.

China is an interesting case, as it is a very superstitious society, which involves supernatural beliefs, but there is little in the way of overt religion. I personally find this rather odd. China also shows how hard it is to impose morality from above. They tried to create the New Socialist Man, but as soon as the heel was not pressing quite so hard on the neck, they went right back to being the pragmatic, self-seeking, exploitive, relentlessly commercial people they had been for centuries before communism.

Yeah, just like you demolished anthropogenic global warming. :lol:

You mean, by indisputable evidence and irrefutable logic? Yep.

When AGW is recognized as one of the most atrocious examples of widespread scientific misconduct in history (the only worse one I can think of is neoclassical economics), I want you to remember: I was right, and you were wrong.

[Rich]

Religion sacrfices the collective for the individual. Religion particularly Monotheism is selfish narcissism. Belief in a particular God let alone a belief in God in general doesn't provide society with an objective foundation of morality. The pre modern world was wracked by warfare. Not only was there war between states there was constant war and strife with in states. Even Hippy idealised Tibet suffered frequent assassinations, conflicts and rebellions.

Non believers find it easy to agree on the legitimacy of the government. Religion sacrifices the stability of society to give the individual comforting fantasies. You only have to look at Syria, Afghanistan or Somalia. God is merely the displaced megalomanic ego of the believer.

[Hong Wu]

Yeah, I know Chinese people pretty well by now. They are extremely superstitious. Yet most of them say they don't believe in any higher power. But by other counts, as much of a third of China's population may be underground Christians. It's a much more complicated situation than most people realize.

I think Kobe is right though that subservience to the state has worked fairly well for the Chinese, but they also suffer from massive levels of corruption, a lack of trust and faith in their government and leaders. Force has been substituted for willing cooperation, although in China's case willing cooperation is difficult due to the many different cultures, dialects and languages that are present in the country.

[jango1985]

No it isn't. Get a better dictionary. You are just using a perfectly ordinary English word incorrectly.

My dictionary is fine, you need to learn the definitions of some of the words making up the definitions of other words or you will fail to understand the the word in question. All words, all concepts are completely subject to human limitations, there is only belief in a practical sense unless you believe in supernatural ergo even the idea of objectivity is limited to subjective thought. But the practical applications are that objectivity is more successful generally in real world applications and through the shared situation of life they too can perceive this coined objectivity, but it will only ever be as objective as limitations of humans. Unless you think your eyes are all seeing, your ears hear everything and your mind can calculate entire universes you have a technical bias limiting what a term like objectivity can ever mean to a human being.