Is anyone "better" than anyone?
Not sure if this is Ethics or Political Philosophy. I think this post is mostly ethics? But the implications are more related to social interactions and governance.
I would like to just hear what everyone thinks about the title question without an explanation, but that doesn't give anyone an incentive to respond. So I will add my thoughts, but please feel free (encouraged) to respond in a different direction. And if I am just whining about semantics, feel free to let me know that too.
My feelings are that no one (no-thing) is "better" than anyone (anything), until a qualifier is added for "better". Yes you can be better than me at soccer, or differential equations, or stacking cups; but that does not make one entity "better" than another. I feel this is somewhat obvious, and anyone who is not a moral objectivist would agree, but it seems many people do view some people or things as better than others (not just a specific aspect of that thing - but the "whole" of one is better than the "whole" of the other).
I am not sure if I am even close to getting to an actual point. So here are a few questions that may help shed some light on where I am trying to go (and you people who are good at philosophy may point out that whatever I am trying to get at, is just some tired old point that has been beaten to death in certain philosophical circles - in which case please just kindly point me in the right direction).
Are those who are wrong, worse than those who are right? Are criminals worse than non-criminals? Are people better than ants?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, please support with as much reasoning/evidence as possible; because I will probably struggle to understand :grimace:
I would like to just hear what everyone thinks about the title question without an explanation, but that doesn't give anyone an incentive to respond. So I will add my thoughts, but please feel free (encouraged) to respond in a different direction. And if I am just whining about semantics, feel free to let me know that too.
My feelings are that no one (no-thing) is "better" than anyone (anything), until a qualifier is added for "better". Yes you can be better than me at soccer, or differential equations, or stacking cups; but that does not make one entity "better" than another. I feel this is somewhat obvious, and anyone who is not a moral objectivist would agree, but it seems many people do view some people or things as better than others (not just a specific aspect of that thing - but the "whole" of one is better than the "whole" of the other).
I am not sure if I am even close to getting to an actual point. So here are a few questions that may help shed some light on where I am trying to go (and you people who are good at philosophy may point out that whatever I am trying to get at, is just some tired old point that has been beaten to death in certain philosophical circles - in which case please just kindly point me in the right direction).
Are those who are wrong, worse than those who are right? Are criminals worse than non-criminals? Are people better than ants?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, please support with as much reasoning/evidence as possible; because I will probably struggle to understand :grimace:
Comments (48)
If we assign a purpose or ultimate goal (also known as a telos) to a person that this person has in virtue of being a person (and not a soccer player, movie star, soldier, mother or philosopher), then certainly it seems that we can evaluate how well this person is achieving their essential telos. And from there, we can compare persons against each other, perhaps by introducing the notion of virtues, or duties, or characters.
As you can see there's a difference in what A and B are good at or bad at. It appears that neither of them are better or worse in a holistic sense due to their varied abilities or lack of them.
However, when assessing or comparing A or B, one can choose one particular ability as the primary determinant of comparison. A person who is concerned about morality can say and may say that A is better than B in a holistic sense. A chess enthusiast's opinion will differ.
So, there's nothing wrong in saying A is better than B or the inverse.
@darthbarracuda
I feel this "Telos" is adding a subjective qualifier. You may define it one way, while I define it another. Then we are basing "better" or "worse" relative to our invented ideas of what completes (sorry if wrong word usage) that person.
@TheMadFool
I think you have attacked the semantic component I was worried about. I get that when someone says "I am better than you", they are likely meaning that in a specific way: "I am better at soccer", or "I am stronger, etc." But I am addressing the way laws and norms are created based on the idea that whole entities are "worse" than others (for example, the ease with which I can crush an ant, and have no guilty feelings {although the more I think about it, the more I wonder if I should feel bad}, implies that I view ants as "worse" than people).
Perhaps the below scenario will clarify a bit of what I am TRYING (struggling) to get at:
I view morals subjectively. However, I am happy to view societies and decide that certain morals are more conducive to a successful community and therefor make rules that people are required to follow. That being said, I only "think" my chosen morals are "better". No one is "worse" for not following the rules. If a random supernova destroys planet earth tomorrow, everything is identical to how it would be if either Hitler or Gandhi did not exist. So why is Gandhi "better"? I would say, "because Gandhi reduced suffering while Hitler increased it." But that is just a moral opinion. Why is it better to reduce suffering?
Maybe I am just whining about objectivists?
I think you are correct that we can define it in different ways. But if we do actually define it, then presumably we have reasons for why we think this way. Which entails that we can argue and disagree and believe that one of us is actually in the wrong. Subjective qualifiers may inadvertently point to something that can be identified as objective.
Of course, perhaps all this talk is just cobwebs in our minds. Perhaps nobody is right, and everyone is wrong, and we are all playing a game based on preferences, or what-not. But this is getting into the heart of meta-ethics, specifically error theory and the anti-realist camps. Which I think is what is really at stake in this thread.
Fortunately for us highly opinionated, judgmental, comparison prone beings, we do live in a 3-dimensional universe. Make that 4-dimensional if you include time. Better than, worse than, before, after, useful, useless, good, bad, and so forth exist in this world.
Since we are capable of perceiving moral differences, and because we have moral preferences, we can say that Gandhi is good, Hitler is bad, (or visa versa if you are THAT kind of person), and, yes, people are better than ants.
It's possible to get all tied up in word games, and some people like that. "People are more than ants." Well, that may be true, but "There are more ants than people."
For my money, good food is better than bad food. Bigger is better. People who are honest, decent, kind, and loving are better than people who are liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels. Ants are fine in their place as long as they don't get too big and move in with me.
Whether any of this would still be true (or false) if a supernova destroyed earth tomorrow, is not clear. We'd have to try it and see what difference a vaporized earth made to our discussion. Do you happen to have a handy star about to NOVA?
If you are then you're right. Each moral theory seems to have, what it seems, absurd consequences or times where it conflicts with itself.
Does it mean, however, that morality is subjective? I don't know. Subjectivism seems a way out, the easy way out. Subjectivism explains the situation if we consider morality as static - like a photograph. Yet, when we follow the history of morality (video), it seems we're arriving at some kind of objectivity. For instance, there was a time when slavery wasn't immoral. Now it is, and is universally so, save for a few regions that haven't experienced the effects of globalization or the like.
First off, thank you all. Your latest responses suggest my thoughts were at least mostly understandable. You each gave me things to think about, and there is not much to argue (but that is what I do, so there will be a little bit). Also, I am new here...I responded to all 3 in one post. If it is preferred to split up each individual response, just let me know.
@darthbarracuda
In practice, I think this is how I operate. Use the available info to come to the best possible conclusion, and go with it (and that seems reasonable on a societal level as well). But I will always be aware I may be wrong, and even if I am right, it doesn't make me "better" than anybody.
@darthbarracuda
Thank you. I knew I was getting into some sort of Descartes "how do I know this table is really a table, or even here at all?" type stuff, but my formal philosophy is rather limited.
@Bitter Crank
Too funny. I have this thought nearly word-for-word every time I kill an ant (or any bug) inside my house.
@Bitter Crank
As this is part of my dilemma, I need (want) to point out that one of those adjectives does not fit with the other 3. I could say something is "better" because it is "hotter" or "larger" or "faster". But the other words have far more specific meanings. Very few things will fit "hotter" because it is "larger" or "faster" because it is "hotter". I get that Jupiter (or any star) fits the first example and gases (all matter) basically fit the second, but "better" can be applied to anything for any reason. So it feels wrong (pointless?, worthless?) to say that one whole entity is better than a whole different entity...without a relative description it is meaningless.
@Bitter Crank
We can, and I do :grin: But what value does that statement have to anyone over 11? A child has limited cognitive abilities so simplifying things into good and bad is a neat shortcut. But for adults, can't we just lay out the things that they each did? Then relative to our ideas of what life / society / a person should be, we can see which action were most beneficial or most harmful...never-mind, that sounds like way too much work to expect that to happen with any regularity, oh well.
@Bitter Crank
Yes, and as one that does tend to get tied down in semantics, I apologize for now and anytime in the future where I keep coming back to the usage of a specific word - but it is almost obsessive-compulsive at times (I expect that I can be annoying, so if anyone needs to tell me to go take a long walk off a short pier, I will understand).
@Bitter Crank
Since I apologized, now I have free reign to attack word usage, right? I mostly agree with the opinions, but I prefer to express them as "I like good food more than bad." "I think bigger is better" (I may disagree with that some portion of the time, but I just realized that I am speaking with someone who prefers the company of men and this may have a loaded meaning). "I prefer to spend time with people who are kind, decent, etc." Yes, I get this is just semantics, and if someone on the street says to me "pizza is better than hamburgers" I assume they mean "I like pizza more than hamburgers" but when these shortcuts become so ingrained that people are comfortable saying, "I am better than you" or "Men are worse/better than women" or "English is better than Scottish" or "Americans are better than everyone" and certainly "Christians are better than non-Christians" there is a problem. And one solution (perhaps the most annoying possible) would be to challenge people every time they use the word in a way that requires more reasoning...for example:
@Bitter Crank
Oh yeah, how so? No need to answer :grin: I know the reasons you would say, and you know I would say "so why does that make them better" and that could go on forever. People into philosophy already analyze everything to the nth degree, so I am not worried about you making bald unjustifiable assertions, but everyone who does not spend ANY significant time thinking about this stuff in depth, might be harmed by being allowed to take the same shortcuts.
And no, hahaha, I am not preparing for any imminent incoming NOVAS, or quasars, or any of the other things they show me in those astronomy shows that could wipe us all out.
@TheMadFool
Yes, that is dead on - or at least a BIG part of it. I have always thought the only way I could buy into an objective morality (besides the type of subjectively-objective Darthbarracuda and BitterCrank were discussing) I felt made sense, would be a series of if-then statements that cover every possible scenario a moral agent could ever encounter (seems unlikely).
@TheMadFool
This is the subjective-objective thing I mentioned above. And I am cool with that (in practice I feel I operate that way), but when I am dealing in theory or principles I have to acknowledge to myself that those things are "right" or "better" because I (and hopefully a much larger consensus) believe they are. If we establish goals, then we can be more objective...but how can the goals themselves be objective?
Thanks all,
ZBT
Moral principles seem to converge with time. If I'm right to assume that moral ''progress'' is correlated with the progress of rationality, it would imply that the convergence of moral principles (all cultures agreeing on what is good or bad) is caused by heeding good arguments either for or against a given moral tenet. This is objective isn't it because rationality is, by definition, objective, right?
If there were no objective aspect to morality then cultures should diverge (be different from each other) on ethics. Am I right?
What exactly is the basis for such a phenomenon - the meeting of various culutres on moral issues?
I think the underlying foundation for it is the happiness-suffering paradigm that is universal.
Thank you for catching that double entendre.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
You emphasize the importance of modifiers and context. If two executives of a frozen food company are discussing products, they might agree that "Pizza is better than hamburgers" as a product that can be frozen, reheated, and still appeal to consumers. If, on the other hand, two people are in the food court, the one who likes Italian-type flavorings might say that "pizza is better than hamburgers". On the other hand, the lactose intolerant person is likely to think that "hamburgers are better than pizza".
My personal opinion is that DIGIORNO® frozen pizza -- "It's not delivery, It's DiGiorno!" is better than several brands of made-to-order pizza that are delivered, like Dominoes. I have had definitive pizza shop product that was exquisite, but that place is no longer in business. (see Nobody ever went broke underestimating American taste.)
Quoting ZhouBoTong
True, but don't tell the French that. Les Français sont facilement ennuyés. (see One Thousand Years of Annoying the French)
The thing about language is that it works. True, one needs to be fluent in a language to handle all the multiple layers of meaning and usage for which any language can be deployed. The "quirkiness" of language trips up the language learner, and it doesn't matter what their native or new language is. But quirkiness is also what makes word play fun, and allows for double entendres, and the like.
We can analyze language until hell freezes over, and as long as you enjoy doing that, great. Meanwhile billions of people wield language effortlessly 24/7. We are designed to wield language. Babies start learning it immediately (at least, they are listening, soaking it up).
You said we can say "I am better at soccer than you" but is that really an objective truth? I could say Messi is better than Ronaldo and give me reasoning but there are still many who would disagree with that. Just how much better does one need to be at soccer until we can say that person is better at soccer and it's no longer subjective?
You could say "I am better at kicking the ball further than you" because this is something which can be measured. However, we have not stipulated the rules for deciding kicking the ball further and I could include things like an energy output/distance kicked ratio as my main argument for why I am better at kicking the ball further than you rather than total distance covered.
I don't really want to go further with this line of thinking, I am just pointing out it's not as simple as you described in your OP.
Can someone be better than someone else? Yes but this can only be asserted by something subjective and so how much the claim matters is entirely subjective also.
So I was going to respond: "rational = good / irrational = bad is subjective"
But I do believe I have passed the point of utility in this argument. Your description above is good enough to be "objective" for practical purposes. Perhaps I should accept that as good enough...I think that may have been @Bitter Crank's point as well.
Quoting TheMadFool
Again, close enough to objective for practical purposes.
Quoting Bitter Crank
The above is exactly my point with the word "better". Similar to the word "love", it has enough different meanings to be a near worthless word without contextual clues (or additional words that clarify meaning).
I agree that language is generally sufficient, but it often fails when describing complicated topics (and regularly will fail if one is trying to describe complicated topics and they are not careful with words). I also understand that I am over-analyzing things...but isn't MOST of philosophy over-analysis of some topic?
Finally, I got a couple good laughs out of that post, thanks.
Ok, this is interesting, because I thought I was being the ultimate subjectivist, and clearly you understood me as saying something else. In any case, I agree with this at least 99% (probably 100%, but clearly there was some misunderstanding).
Quoting Judaka
Good point. My point was that "Messi is better than Ronaldo at soccer" is at least somewhat measurable. It is at least certain that "Messi is better than me at soccer." However, what about the phrase "Messi is better than Ronaldo" minus the "at soccer" qualifier? See how that is an even bigger abuse than what you were referring too? That was the problem I was trying to address.
Quoting Judaka
Agreed. And I actually thought that is what I was saying...oops.
...and you touched on a bit of a sensitive subject, everything is subjective to me except for the objective fact that Messi is better than Ronaldo at soccer, hehe.
That rational is good and irrational is bad is not subjective. There are reasons for being rational and not irrational e.g. not getting killed by thinking that gravity doesn't apply to you or that cyanide is good for the bones.
I've always had trouble distinguishing subjectivity from objectivity. After all objectivity seems to be just consensus of subjective observations.
It seems that when an observation is consistent over time, space and person the probability of consensus of views increase. This perhaps is objectivity. For instance if I only observe a bright light in the sky then it could be that I'm mistaken. If, however, you and others agree that there is a bright light in the sky then the likelihood that there is, in fact, a bright light in the sky increases. This is probably the principle that underlies the scientific rule that observations must be repeatable to qualify as fact i.e. objectivity.
So, my views and yours, alone, would be subjective but that of an entire community or people is probably not subjective but rather objective.
Another view of objectivity is when it relates to being rational i.e. demanding evidence for a belief. We only believe in well-supported claims. This too is being objective, right?
Objectivity, ergo, requires being rational about beliefs and consensus/consistency of observations.
Well, I don't necessarily think it's wrong to think "I'm better than you". Generally, it's expressing a feeling of superiority and contempt than anything else. However, we can use a subjective framework to decide it as you agreed.
The question is what has greater validity than doing something like this?
I think that will define how you look at it.
For me, the answer is, not much.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Certain subjective frameworks are less contentious than others. To say Messi is better than me at soccer is a characterisation of the identification and qualification of both of our various skills in soccer. Those skills are ranked in importance and we get some kind of answer. It's the same for doing equations and stacking cups. I think this characterisation is necessarily subjective because it's an interpretation of the facts.
Has universal agreement on particular standards for measuring something made the characterisation less subjective or more valid? You've distinguished between "One can be better AT something than another but one can't be better than another at nothing ".
I disagree with this distinction, you've selected non-contentious comparisons which can be easily tested and there is a lack of variety of interpretations. It's a spectrum, I'm sure you will agree. If I went around saying "I am better at philosophy than Mr X" you'd be approaching that with the same perspective as if I said "Mr X, I'm better than you".
If not, I see this as a contradiction.
You could ask me why I think I'm better at philosophy than Mr X but all you're going to hear about are my interpretations and subjective framework. Exactly the same stuff you'd hear if you asked me why I thought I was better than Mr.X.
I realised I'm not willing to go around saying "I'm better than Mr X" you will hear me saying "I'm a better philosopher than Mr.X". I know it's not an objective truth but at the same time, I want to value my subjective framework and I don't think there's anything more valid or important than it. I think not valuing your subjective framework as a 100% subjectivist leads down the rabbit hole of dark nihilism, where a lack of objective meaning means no worthwhile meaning at all.
Given that, yes, many people judge that some people are better, in whatever context, than others.
It's not something anyone can be wrong or right about. We're just talking about persons' individual feelings/dispositions.
If a person strives for the well-being of others and the self, combined; While holding knowledge and the pursuit for truth higher than the sum of their social projections and interactions - I would call that person better than those who do not strive for this.
To be better than someone else in a specific topic, a contest etc. is irrelevant, superficial and an illusion. To "win", or be "better than someone else" at something can lead to master/slave-situations where the better one get comfortable within their own confidence and the one who lost, grows by overcoming weaknesses and learn to combine new knowledge with a confidence that is more balanced and nuanced. There are no winners and losers in the end, no one is better than anyone else because identity and performance always flow and change.
To be better needs to be based on axioms of the human condition. What defines us, like: knowledge, emotions, communication. We can make people feel better, we can do it while at the same time maximizing that positivity within ourselves as well. We can strive to know more, gain knowledge in order to understand the complexities of life, we can value truth over what is comforting for our ego. It's hard to position the axis of these things under more complexity than good or bad about the human condition; Knowledge or no knowledge? There's no positive value in no knowledge. Truth or no truth? There's no positive value in no truth. Well-being or harm? There's no positive value in harm.
If we combine the axioms into a map over the human condition, we can more easily see what is good and bad within being human and striving for good, which in turn shows which someone is better than someone else. The key here is not to "be good", because that's undefinable and relies on a causality measurement that is far too complex for anyone to calculate in their day to day life for every choice they make. But striving for these axioms is pretty much guaranteed to make you a better person, ignoring them pretty much guarantees you to be a worse person.
Quoting TheMadFool
First, once there are goals (your "reasons" above I think), then there can certainly be objective "best" methods of reaching that goal. But the goal itself is still subjective. Isn't this just the is/ought problem (any goal is suggesting what society ought to be)?
Quoting TheMadFool
While I agree with the difficulty of distinguishing between the two, in my mind, consensus just suggests that our subjective thoughts might be (the more consensus, the more likely) objective. I can even accept "objective enough for all intents and purposes", but objectivity would entail certainty (or at least the potential), and I don't see how that could happen.
Quoting TheMadFool
I would say that it is tending toward objectivity, but just like infinity, it can never actually be reached. But notice that the concept of infinity has still proved useful despite no evidence that anything real is infinite (plenty of concepts, but for example we do not "know" that matter is infinitely divisible, but in theory, anything that can be labeled 1, can be called half of that one).
Hmmm, I think I just combined math and philosophy in a way that is probably abusing some principle just to make my point. Feel free to destroy the above, I was just trying to clarify my thinking.
Quoting TheMadFool
So is the objective Christian community right, or the objective Muslim community? Sorry, couldn't help myself, and I get that was not fair to your position. But which views of an entire community actually align? Murder is bad. Fair (but by definition, so consensus is not needed). So you get life in prison? An intensive 10 year rehab program? The death sentence? No consensus there. I think the issues that there would actually be a solid consensus on, would be so vague as to be meaningless (ie stealing is bad)... are there a couple of good examples of specific objective items (one type of example would be laws and their corresponding penalties)? And just to prepare for one type of objection; abortion laws may appear objective if we look at several different communities (countries) that all end up with the same abortion laws...so those laws must be objective? That doesn't make sense, as the laws are just a compromise between the all of the various subjective opinions that real people actually have...I don't see how we can call that objective?
Quoting TheMadFool
This to me sounds like a subjective agent striving toward objectivity, which is great; but I would say it is the best we can ever hope for. Don't we all have varying standards of what we count as "well-supported"? Aren't scientists' "well-supported" claims more objective than religious fundamentalists' "well-supported" claims? As long as we describe things as "more" or "less" objective, we are surely still describing things subjectively, right?
Quoting TheMadFool
Some chunk of our disagreement seems to just be some combination of word usage, semantics, or definitions.
Thanks
ZBT
...I owe 2-3 more responses to other posters. I will get to those.
Agreed, and in my mind, the more qualifiers or stipulations we add, the less contentious (more objective...but not objective) it becomes.
Quoting Judaka
I am a little confused here. If Susie can stack 30 cups in 10 seconds, and Billie can stack 20 cups in 10 seconds, Suzie is objectively better (the rules of the game include the objective of stacking more cups in the same amount of time - no I don't rules exactly, but needless to say they exist). Yes humans invented the rules, so they were created subjectively; but the game does not exist without the rules so once established, they are objective (yes still subject to interpretation, but surely we can both name plenty of games where there is little to no fear of interpretation {tic-tac-toe}. Maybe I missed what you were getting at?
Quoting Judaka
The standards themselves are still subjective. However, once the standards are created, assuming they are comprehensive, they can be followed objectively, can't they? Since you are the only one so far to say that I am labeling too much as objective, I am rather interested in your thoughts.
Quoting Judaka
Yes, nailed it. That is exactly what I was trying to do. It seems so obvious when you phrase it simply like that...and yet I get the sense that you have a problem with that statement...please be specific and I will try to address it, but I am not exactly sure where the problem is.
I would say that one can be better "at something" because many "somethings" have stated goals For example, the hundred meter dash has the goal of running 100 meters in less time than anyone else. So, while it may be subjective to say Suzie is better at running than James, it could be objective to say Suzie is better at the 100 meter dash, because, by definition of 100 meter dash, "better" is completing the same distance {100m} in less time.
Quoting Judaka
This just sounds like I need to be more specific. As per my example above, I cannot say "A is better than B at any random thing". But as soon as I am specific with my words, I can easily makes objective statements. Obviously it will be difficult to say "A is better than B at philosophy" because what the heck do you mean by the word "philosophy"? But as soon as I put in specific words, it works fine; "A is better than B at chess" - Now if we compare to 2 mediocre, two poor, and two genius chess player, my statement does not hold up (still subjective), but if we are comparing Bobby Fisher and an average 8 year old, I don't need any additional qualifiers to accept this as objectively true. Under what circumstances could it NOT be true?
Quoting Judaka
After taking all that time to say the above, I re-read your post. I do agree it is a spectrum of more or less objective/subjective. But I do think that definitions, once created, can create a type of objectivity.
Quoting Judaka
Well I think we are good here. My lack of belief in objectivism (not Rand - but i don't like that objectivism either) has lead to certain amounts of nihilism, but eventually I just decided to TRY to make my subjective opinions as well-supported (yes VERY subjective words there) as possible and run with it. I am still a bit of an objective nihilist...basically amounts to "well nothing REALLY matters, but I decide that I like x, y, and z so I should work toward those ends, because I want to."
I agree with the overall spirit of your post, and view your words as true enough to live by; but this is a discussion forum where we over-analyze things that most of the world has no interest in :grin: .
I had a small disagreement with your final lines. If we are specific with our words, there are times where definitions create objectivity (or definite right vs wrong). For example, if I were to say, "at age 30, Hussein Bolt was a better runner than Stephen Hawking was at that same age", I can only be right. While "better" is often vague, in this case the difference between the two things being compared is so vast, that even a vague descriptor like "better" must be true...or am I missing something?
I am trying to distinguish between facts and interpretations of facts. Interpretations being necessarily subjective. It is a fact that Susie can stack cups faster than Bob, it is not a fact that Susie is better at stacking cups than Bob because that is an interpretation of the facts. Being non-contentious just reflects wide-scale agreement and a lack of variety of interpretations.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
I don't like this perspective, characterising subjectivity as preference. Though you can think that way and still avoid dark nihilism.
Pragmatism and consistency to the subjectivist framework are the answers to dark nihilism. If nothing has objective meaning, then objective meaning never had any objective meaning either. That we don't have it means nothing unless we interpret it to mean nothing.
Interpreting it to mean things like "life is meaningless" and "there's no point to do anything" is unnecessary and very unpragmatic. It's the same with objective morality, if you interpret it to mean all morals are equal then that's something you decided using your subjective framework and personal interpretations and it's unpragmatic.
I'm not assuming you struggle with dark nihilism but you seem to lean towards some notions I consider unhelpful. Giving rules and language objectivity status, devaluing subjective frameworks and so on.
I am not talking about a spectrum of objectivity/subjectivity but a spectrum of contentiousness. Objectivity as intersubjective verification is a term best saved for talking about objective truth. You can't bolster the validity of interpretations through intersubjective verification. The interpretations implicit in language and rules shouldn't get special treatment, which makes their inherent arguments contestable.
"We measure who's better at stacking cups by seeing how many cups they can stack in 30 seconds, whoever stacked the most is the best". We've created objectivity!
No? I reject your premise, without a true premise, your premises are false, the argument is invalidated. Simple.
Thank you for the unique and interesting approach to this topic. However, my mind has been so focused on subjective vs objective in this thread that I am not sure how to address this one. I see an occasional point that my compulsive side just wants to yell, "well that is subjective"; but that was not the focus of your post, so who cares? You have laid out a nice framework, and if everyone operated based on that, it would be a world I would be happy to live in.
But just a couple of points, I am not clear on:
Quoting Christoffer
I am a bit confused, while sports are not the only thing that can be "won", they are likely one of the first examples that spring to mind when one hears, "win"; so how do sports lead to slavery?
Quoting Christoffer
You mean because we are all dead? If so, I am with you. If not, I need more clarification.
Quoting Christoffer
Here I agree with the first half -"no one is better than anyone else" - but disagree with the second. Things do change, but surely we can admit some extremes...No paraplegic will ever be better than Messi is right now at soccer (without a rules change), and a Field's Medal winner is better at math than most people with down syndrome. These are obviously trivial examples, but is there any question the statements are 100% true? So in general, I agree, no one is better than anyone else. But you have not convinced me that qualifiers do not change this. For example, "no one is better than anyone else at math" seems obviously wrong to anyone that has carefully observed a room full of people doing math.
Quoting Christoffer
Again, I like the sound of this. But I worry we will not all agree on the axioms.
And again, this post felt different so I may have butchered your position a bit. Feel free to straighten me out.
Well then, wasn't I just creating facts with everything I was trying to label as objective? Are definitions of words facts?
Quoting Judaka
But this was not exactly how I said it. I described a game. The rules of the game are that whoever stacks the most cups in 10 seconds is the winner (best), whoever stacks the second most cups gets second place (2nd best, but better than 3rd) and so on. According to these rules there are objectively (by definition) better cup stackers. They are defined as better based on the rules...and if you are following different rules then you are not playing the same game. What am I missing? Maybe I cannot call 1st place best? But they were the "best" based on the rules of the game?
Sorry got to run for the night, but thank you for your thoughts.
I think rationality applies to everything under the sun without exception. We can use it to ascertain whether our goals were subjective or objective as you yourself have done. That there are differences in our preferences doesn't entail that all our preferences are subjective. I don't know how far we've progressed in determining the objectivity or subjectivity of morality though. Suffering-happiness seems an objective fact. We could build our moral edifice on that. That's just my opinion. Yours may differ.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Objectivity entails certainty? Well, I think it's the converse. Certainty entails objectivity. Being objective (a mental posture, unbiases observations, etc) doesn't mean the world will reveal its secrets to you. However, if one wants certainty, a 100% assurance on claims, we have to get rid of our biases i.e. be objective.
If you are going to say that it's totally legitimate to create a subjective framework such as rules or definitions and use that to create uncontestable conclusions then your OP is arguing against contentiousness or the validity of subjective frameworks. You don't see "rules" as arguments/interpretations and it's a bit silly imo.
Game
Rule: The best cup stacker is the one who can stack the most cups in 30 seconds
Susie can stack more cups than Bob in 30 seconds
Objective conclusion: Susie is a better cup stacker than Bob.
Argument
Premise: The best cup stacker is the one who can stack the most cups in 30 seconds
Susie can stack more cups than Bob in 30 seconds
My Conclusion: Susie is a better cup stacker than Bob.
So you called a premise a rule and now you're being objective, very cool. I want to try.
Rule: People who are have more financial assets and better looks are better than those who don't.
Susie has more financial assets and better looks than Bob
Objective conclusion: Susie is better than Bob.
The only difference I can see is contentiousness, you give "official" rules special treatment because of their status. You really Bob is a worse cup stacker than Susie is an objective truth?
Why 30 seconds? Bob may have stacked more cups in 1 minute. Why stacking more cups than Bob make Susie better when Bob made 0 mistakes and she made a few? Why doesn't that count for anything?
Your interpretation of what makes a better cup stacker being made into rules doesn't elevate their status. From my perspective, your argument is invalid because you've ignored many factors I consider important in determining who the best cup stacker is.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Your main argument is contentiousness. There is the truth and there are interpretations of the truth. Interpretations of the truth have degrees of contentiousness. You seem to think high in contentiousness means high in subjectivity and low in contentiousness means high in objectivity. I just don't agree.
Bobby Fischer might beat someone 10000000 times in a row, you'd say he's objectively better at chess than that person. Okay, but to do that you defined what being better at chess means, you did that subjectively, there's no alternative.
No you can't. It entirely depends on what an individual counts as "better running"
Now this I can go with. Suffering and happiness exists. We should (ought) base our morality on that. It is still subjective, but as good a starting point as I can think of.
Quoting TheMadFool
Entirely fair...I was struggling to word that portion (and that was why I even added "the potential for certainty" because I was sure it was somewhat wrong).
Quoting TheMadFool
Hmmm, I think I messed up somewhere. I feel like EVERYONE in this thread has a slightly different idea of what they mean by "subjective/objective" and this is leading to much of the disagreement. In fact, the longer it goes, the more I am questioning myself as to what exactly I mean by those words. I am usually thinking more along the lines of "facts are objective, opinions are subjective", but that is at least incomplete, at worst someone else could have an entirely different meaning (heck, on a philosophy site, I am sure there are plenty of people that question whether there are objective facts).
We could start a thread like this with definitions, but that is likely to derail the discussion before it starts...maybe that is just the nature of philosophical discussions?
I am definitely still not getting something that you are trying to say. Maybe this will help me:
Is math objective? Why not?
Are you just saying that ALL information must be interpreted by an agent, so it is all subjective? So does that mean if life disappears then everything vanishes because there are no agents to interpret?
Sorry, I am taking it to extremes to try to understand.
Cool. But once we take it to this extreme, language has lost its purpose. Hmmm, this may be what @TheMadFool and @Bitter Crank were saying I was doing. I think by the time I am done with this thread, I will be entirely confused on subjectivity/objectivity.
Thanks for the contribution to my indecision :grin:
So, tell us what you mean by ''subjective'' and ''objective''.
I proposed a paradigm for objective morality grounded on the universality of suffering/happiness. Do you think suffering and happiness are subjective? Why?
Nailed it.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think the existence of happiness and suffering is objective. The idea that reducing suffering is good, I would count as subjective (I whole-heartedly support this as a good starting point for morality - analyzing the facts as objectively as possible leads me to BELIEVE that is as good a starting point as any), but isn't morality by definition, "how one ought to live"? Doesn't the ought make it subjective?
Quoting TheMadFool
Well this thread has caused me to question this a little. In the past, I just went with facts are objective, opinions are subjective. But as you have clarified, BEING objective is more about being impartial and letting facts speak for themselves...but as I type this I think my original definition still makes sense. So maybe I should wait for your thoughts...
I will stick with, facts are objective, opinions are subjective.
Gotta run for the night, thanks for the input.
I am not saying it must be interpreted by an agent, I am distinguishing between facts and the interpretation of facts.
If all beings disappear, the universe will still exist but "meaning" won't.
"1+1 = 2 means 1+1 = 2."
1+1 =2 is an objective truth but that doesn't "mean" 1+1 = 2. The idea that 1+1 = 2 means 1+1 = 2 is just a human trying to justify his belief that 1+1 = 2. In this case, what they think 1+1 =2 means and what it actually is are the same thing. At least as far as the evidence suggests.
I am not claiming that Susie doesn't stack more cups than Bob in 30 seconds or that it's subjective that she does. If she does then she does. If that is all one pointed out then who can blame them? It's the truth.
You interpret the fact that Susie can stack more cups than Bob to mean that Susie is better at stacking cups than Bob. You call these rules and say you're being objective but it's just your opinion. You've said the fact that Susie stacks more cups than Bob means she's better at stacking cups. Whatever follows the word "means' is subjective. Regardless of what anyone thinks.
If you are just arguing that because one cannot be better at "nothing" and so it's just a fundamentally incorrect statement to claim you're "better at nothing" then I would advise you to really think about what is being said by "I am better than you". I think the person saying that knows exactly what they mean and why they think that - it's just like calling one movie better than another and it's commonplace and not controversial at all. They've omitted their criteria for their assertion but that doesn't mean they have none.
If you disagree then which part? You believe meaning is not subjective or that rules have special properties which elevate them from being arguments with contestable premises and conclusions?
What's the difference between fact and opinion?
Personally speaking, a fact is true whether you believe it or not. An opinion doesn't have to be true but may be held as a belief.
Don't you see any facts to ground morality on?
Isn't suffering-joy a fact. People may deny it but still feel pain at the loss of a loved one and joy when winning a lottery.
I don't know what Kant would've said about such a hedonistic outlook but I'm sure the categorical imperative is meaningful only to the extent that it has the potential of making people happy and not suffer.
How do we think of "oughts" vis-a-vis morality? The moral oughts have a source - our wants/wishes. Our wants boil down to dislike of suffering and like of happiness. Right? So, it seems to me that moral oughts have an objective basis right there.
Another thing to note is that if our moral oughts were purely subjective then we should be seeing a lot of contradictions from person to person, place to place, culture to culture, etc. every possible level of humanity should have contradictory views on morality. This is not the case. As I mentioned in my previous post all lines are converging at one point - encourage happiness and discourage suffering.
The purpose (According to whom? Purposes are alwaysto someone) of language is to pretend that value judgments/evaluative utterances are objective in some contexts? :joke:
Depends on what they are wrong about, and, even if they are "wrong". Ultimately, there has to be someone (or something?) that decides what is right and wrong. Who or what is that? Not trying to sound like Ayn Rand here but.... unless we have a clear, unanimous "leader", I believe it is relative.
This is not to say I don't have my own ideas of right and wrong. I do. But I don't view myself as better than anyone else (overall). But that is just ME.
So, my short, concise answer to your question is: NO (to all of them)
One example:
Some people have good genetics, some people have bad genetics; the odds are better for people with good genetics.
You can get good genetics in the next life by being moral throughout your life.
Some people with good genetics may expereince a bad life; which, is where other examples may arise.
There are many ways a heaven or hell can be created; such as: environment, competition, fear, pain/pleasure, etc.
Given you are in lot's of pain and on your death bed, and I'm healthy and taking lot's of pleasure, I'm a man who's better than you, but if I was evil and you were good, you might just be going to heaven and I'm on my way to hell - so it's down to the righteous judgement.
And there is no such thing as a fact that could never be interpreted differently? Can't we just be more specific with our words?
"If I place my naked hand palm down onto a wood table, and then I take a hammer and hit my hand as hard as I can (I am not an invalid), then I will suffer some sort of injury."
How is that statement in any way debatable? Unless we say words have no REAL meaning?
Are we going to argue over what injury means? Any basic understanding of the word will suffice in this case.
How about "the chemical symbol for water is H20" ? or "water is wet"? What are the various interpreted meanings for these statements?
Quoting Judaka
I am afraid we can't see the same planet on this issue. I can agree that the word "better" may always be subjective because it has a terribly vague definition (it might be subjective by definition). But generally, if we care to take the time, I think we can use language and math (and therefor rules of games) in an objective fashion.
In a universe without life, nothing needs to mean anything, things just are. No matter what the limitations of understanding between people are, nothing can change this fact. Meaning comes from interpretation, evidence is also interpreted - all that we are subjected to through the senses is interpreted and given meaning.
Meaning is essential to intelligent beings, it cannot be dispensed with even if you try. We are ignorant beings trying to understand the universe and meaning is an essential tool for us to do that with.
People distinguish between degrees of contentiousness, intersubjective verification has the lowest level of contentiousness within public knowledge. Even I think people who contend with it are fools. We make rules for what mandates belief, what deserves belief and what doesn't. These are all things that don't happen without intelligent life. I do these things because I am an intelligent life form, it is imperative that I do this and do it well.
There are things I assume are real to the point where I won't entertain conversations about them not being real, there's no evidence to support it and I care about evidence. In that regard, we're the same.
That's why I care a lot about the limitations of evidence and how evidence works and I care that it doesn't work by just creating arbitrary rules and making conclusions based on those rules. That's not evidence, that's nothing.
Rules are arguments and some arguments are more convincing than others. How convincing they are is subjective but to me what I want depends on the context but if we're talking objective truth then it's something approximating the scientific method.
People can tell me what trees are and I don't argue because what do I care if they call a tree what I think looks like a bush, I am happy to play by the rules. When the conclusions people make start to matter to me that's when I start to consider whether I still want to play by the rules or not. If I decide I don't want to play by the rules then that's that, they make arguments and I can make arguments too.
That probably begins before we start talking about qualifying the relative value of things but it's unquestionably a consideration once you've started talking about that. You can't make rules for deciding the relative value of things and skills and monopolise the discussion by claiming the rules make your arguments objective, what nonsense.
I am very interested here (because it is a bit of a struggle). I THINK facts are "what are", opinions are what agents think about that. Well that was a crappy attempt...
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, the above works for me.
Quoting TheMadFool
I agree these are the facts we base our morality on. But I don't see how to get past morality (how we ought to live) as subjective.
Quoting TheMadFool
But there are people (I agree not many, and most we would question there sanity), who would disagree with this moral framework, or at the very least have varying priorities of suffering and happiness (some are far more focused on reducing suffering, with increasing happiness being almost irrelevant).
I like to think this question will help, but is probably just some reducto absurdo (haha, my best attempt at latin), anyway: If our morality is objective, why does it apply to animals far differently than it applies to humans? Is it a fact that animals are inferior to humans?
And as far as the mention of hedonism goes, I am not saying we cannot condemn certain behaviors, we should just be aware that we are just saying that we collectively THINK this is wrong (and that is enough to act on - but not to make it objectively correct - it is not a fact).
I kind of rushed this, so I will go back and re-read your posts when I get the chance.
What do we mean by ''we ought to do x''? It's a directive to follow a certain course of action and it needs a justification. I can't simply say ''we ought not steal'' or ''we ought to give money to the poor''. People will ask ''why?'' That query, the ''why?'', is another way of asking whether the basis of a moral injunction is objective or not. I guess I'm saying that the objectivity of an ought is simply the objectivity of its basis and that I've stated is the undeniable fact of suffering-joy.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
The way we treat animals is changing. There are many animal protection organizations now than in the past. We have laws against mistreatment of animals. I agree that the present situation is not what ought to be BUT we understand the trend and we can see the destination - humane treatment of animals
Ok, this sounds like part of the creation process for the Categorical Imperative. As you might expect, Kant never sold me on its objectiveness. However, I may have mentioned in this thread somewhere that I am open to objective morality if we had an infinite (sounds impossible) series of if-then statements that covered EVERY hypothetical statement ever, then I would be comfortable with objective morality. But to say that since we all have "reason" we can objectively base morality on our shared use of "reason" implies that we all have similar reasoning or reasoning abilities...and that seems ridiculous. For example, here is an example from some college:
"[i]The Golden Rule, as Kant well knew, is a deeply misguided ethical principle. To see this, consider the following somewhat salacious example.
The Horny Martin Example
Suppose that Martin is 20 year-old college student. Suppose further that Martin has never been out on a date. The woman of his dreams finally agrees to go out with him. So Martin gets all dressed up and takes her out to a nice dinner, after which they drive up to Lookout Point. And...
Martin does unto others as he would have done unto himself, with disastrous consequences.
Because the same result cannot be obtained by application of the Categorical Imperative, it follows that the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative are not extensionally equivalent. "[/i]"
-http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_2_Ethical_Traditions/Categorical_Imperative.htm
For me, rather than showing the Golden Rule to be silly, it shows objective (as in shared or universal) reasoning to be a silly concept. If Martin is incapable of understanding that "he would not want to raped in some situations" (the correct application of golden rule vs some over-literal word play nonsense) then what likelihood does he have of correctly using reason to create or understand categorical imperatives?
I may have just called Kant's reasoning "silly", which suggests I may be missing something, but I am sticking with it :)
Haha. Darn right. I actually just meant "to communicate" but I think you got that. I do believe we have taken this about as far as it can go...maybe in a couple years we can have the conversation again and see if anything has changed :smile:
I cannot say if there is an actual "right" answer for this. But you answered exactly as I would have, so huzzah!
So God would say some people are better than others? That seems to directly go against the idea that "god loves all of his children". I am not religious, but I thought that people go to hell as a result of sin, not God's judgement (yes I know potato, potaato), but I have had many Christians argue that God does not judge us. Faith in him allows humans to escape the consequences of sin.
Are you still in the process of formulating your views? (If you were thinking me, I'm a guy rapidly approaching 60, and a lot of my views have been the same for four decades or so)
Actually, according to the Bible, God is the ONLY judge, but, being omniscient, he judged us BEFORE time. The problem with God, or, rather, our attempt to comprehend him is that we can't because, assuming that God is omniscient, and that we are not even close to that, we can't reconcile Him or his thoughts in our minds. It's either a cop out or a fact.
Unfortunately, I do not have enough faith in my own memory to know that my view today is the same as yesterday. Each new thing I learn changes things, but also each time I forget a previously well understood argument, my view may slightly change.
I am approaching 40, so perhaps I just need time. I agree that on major things I am unlikely to change, and in that sense, you are probably right. However, I do not feel that I have talked to many people in life that put the amount of time and effort into thinking about these topics, as many of you have. So, since I am new to actually discussing these topics (I have been reading you all for years), perhaps my mind will change. But, more than likely, you are right.
My brain is strange, it demands that I disagree adamantly with the views I disagree with, but then expects me to find common ground with everyone...hopefully I will get over that and be a bit more comfortable disagreeing.
Makes sense. I definitely understand that every Christian is entitled to their own interpretation of the bible. I probably spent too much time hearing the Seventh Day Adventists' view.