ChrisH

Yes!

But it is important! Your comment ("it would mean...") suggests a profound misunderstanding of the position you have been taking issue with throughout...

Sorry but could you explain the logic of how you get from what I said to "it would mean an individual would say..."

If you mean there's no non-subjective standard by which to assess disparate moral judgements, then yes, you're right. But it does not follow from this...

Sorry, but I'm struggling to make sense of this.

But this is begging the question (it assumes as fact the very thing that's in dispute). That "individual judgements" are the kinds of things that can ...

"Valid" in what sense, and from whose perspective?

You've lost me. What does "it" refer to above? In any event, there's not much 'universal' about attitudes to abortion, homosexuality, animal rights, s...

'Universal' doesn't necessarliy mean 'objective'.

Thanks. That was interesting. Tim Maudlin's comment reflected my concerns about this 'experiment':

Some may, Some may not. Do most people have a clear idea of 'philosophical' objectivity (whatever that is)? It seems to me that people use moral langu...

People use gustatory language as if gustatory properties were objective ("the pizza is delicious"). People use language inconsistently.

From observing common usage. That we have mixed emotions about a person is not surprising. There are many aspects to a person, some of which give rise...

Because your usage simply does not reflect how words such as like and dislike are commonly used. I asked you earlier for an example of an indivisible ...

I think I understand what you're saying but I disagree (I don't think you accurately account for what's going on in a "love-hate" relationship). The t...

Can you give an example?

They're different competing desires. It's simply not possible to simultaneously desire X and not desire X.

That's what moral discourse is all about - to encourage/influence the behaviour of others (eg peer pressure).I'd say you misunderstand morality and mo...

I don't think situations are the kinds of things that can be 'immoral'. All moral choices are essentially about choosing the least evil (however defin...

What's the difference between the least immoral act and the and the most moral act? If there's no difference then the least of all evils must surely b...

I'm struggling to make sense of this. What you say here implies that you may lie if you do have other options! I'm sure this wasn't what you intended....

I don't understand this response. All I'm asking is if X has no 'moral worth' but it is the right thing to do, in what sense is X right? Of course, bu...

If it's not the the right moral thing to do, in what sense, in your view, could it be 'right'?

On message boards in which academic philosophers have contributed.

My usage is based on reading many philosophical discussions over the years where I've seen this distinction made on many occasions.

If you'd said this earlier then you could have saved us both a lot of time. Cheers.

You're making the mistake I mentioned earlier. If you take this view then you disqualify the posibility of making any objective claim about the existe...

No this has nothing to do with agreement. The point is that there is a fact of the matter regardless of what anyone can know or agree upon.

You've selected the entry which deals with an "object, phenomenon, or condition" when in fact we're discussing claims. Entry 3 is the one appropriate ...

I disagree. It's perfectly standard. The standard way is to say that the truth of a claim is independent of anyone's opinions/beliefs/feelings. This i...

I'm afraid you lose me here. All I'm saying is that "I like X" is true or false independent of anyone else's opinion or feelings. This is what it mean...

If mental states correlate with physical brain-states then they are,in principle, objectively verifiable.

If you accept that the veracity of a claim such as "I like X" can be verified objectively in principle, then you must accept that it is an objective c...

Quite honestly I don't care if you want to call it a judgment. The fact remains that it is objectively verifiable (in principle) and is therefore not ...

You continue to miss the point. "I like X" is a claim about the speaker. It is not a claim about 'X'. The speaker's attitudes are a feature of the uni...

This is a red herring. As I said, the veracity could (in principle) be determined (given a sufficiently advanced method of brain scanning). The point ...

It seemed to be implied by this: "I like anchovies" isn't a judgment any more than "I am 6 feet tall" is a judgment. They're both straightforward fact...

Both subjective. Objective (2nd part subjective). Subjective.

If you genuinely don't understand that "I like X" is not the same claim as " X is likeable", then I'm afraid it's you that's confused.

Ok. This is going nowhere.

No. "X is likeable" is a judgment. "I like x" is a factual claim. Either I do (sincere) or I don't (I'm lying)

It's a fact that the speaker has made two statements (everything is a 'fact' in this trivial sense). Only one is an evaluative claim (judgment).

They're not "facts", they're statements which make either judgmental or factual claims.

Both are factual (non-judgmental) statements about the speaker.

You're clearly struggling with the distinction between the following: "I like anchovies" and "Anchovies are delicious" One is a factual statement abou...

That's right. It's a straightforward factual claim.

You just asked for a definition (you didn't say "of subjective/objective"). In any event, if a claim expresses an opinion (an estimation of the qualit...

These are all objectively true or false. They're all claims about an individuals belief's (their brain states) and can all be determined (in principle...

You've been insisting that claims such as "I like anchovies" are opinions (and therefore subjective). The standard definition of 'opinion' does not su...

It's claims (propositions), not "phenomena", that are subjective or objective. I gave an example of the distinction between subjective and objective c...