posted
Subjective, subjective, subjective, objective. With reality, I am assuming that a tree that falls in the forest makes a noise, even if no one hears it.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Although, it rather depends on your interpretation of "truth." I'm defining truth as the to being the truth value of things like "is there a God?" and that the answer is true for everyone rather than on an individual basis.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even know exactly where my opinion falls on this question anymore. A few weeks ago I said I was a non-cognitivist but after reading the article that Jhai linked (link) I don't think I am (non-cognitivism says that moral statements don't have truth value so they can't be objectively or subjectively true). I definitely don't think that morality is objective but I also don't think that it is completely subjective either. For example, I think that if we take morality to be about human well-being then there are actions, such as wife-beating or slavery, that are objectively wrong. If we take morality to be about the well-being of white people then black slavery is not objectively wrong. However, while there is some subjectivity, it's not clear to me that a consistent set of premises can be formulated for every single combination of moral beliefs. I don't think that I could formulate a consistent set of premises that would describe the moral system of Saudi Arabia. I think moral statements are still meaningful because the majority of people agree on some basic premises. As long as there is a context for moral discussion, such as human well-being, moral statements can be objectively true and can vastly simplify a discussion.
I haven't fully vetted my thoughts on this matter so my opinion could easily change before the end of this thread.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
All subjective. Each one of these topics are viewed through the eyes of individuals, each having different experiences and views. While there may be commonality to a high degree amongst individuals this doesn't necessarily equate to objectivity. It only means that you share subjective views.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
To say that there IS an objective truth and an objective reality, however, doesn't mean that we know them or will necessarily know them in the future. At least completely.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with this question is that truth, justice, morality, and reality all exist in an area where objectivity and subjectivity come together. In order for each of those four things to exist meaningfully, they must exist as something fixed and objective, but also must exist as something than can be perceived subjectively and whose nature is determined by how it is perceived.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reality is objective. We have proof of this. For the past 8 years the White House has treated reality as if it were subjective. Everything from Katrina to the Law to Iraq were handled as if the reality were subject to their needs.
The result has not been pretty.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This question stems from a conversation I was having with someone who was completely on the objective side of this. Somehow, she felt her moral ideals followed from our existence.
Perhaps because I disagreed with her view of morality, and perhaps because I failed to see the logical connection between existence and her view of morality, I claimed belief in a subjective view of the world.
But I think reality is objective. If the chair doesn't exist, this is going to be a boring conversation.
Truth, on the other hand, is difficult to define. By truth do I mean fact? Then we are simply describing reality and it is objective. Or are we claiming that there is TRUTH to a claim such as "Only individuals can have rights."
It seems to me that those who argue in favor of objective reality are really saying, "I'm right." As someone who feels morality and justice, at least, are subjective, it is difficult to argue that point. I would say, "You think you are right. I disagree." I cannot make such a bold or powerful assertion as, "I know you are wrong in an objective way."
So my only problem with subjectivism is that it makes it hard to win a debate. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I see morality, justice, and reality all as subsets of truth, which to me is objective.
Same for me, except I see morality, justice, and truth all as subsets of reality, which is objective (if, in large part, unknown or unknowable). Truth describes reality, morality is a part of reality in the same way mathematics is, and justice is a particular part of morality.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is an obvious statement, but reality and perception are often very different. I see perception as almost completely subjective and difficult to reconcile with reality. In fact, while I think reality is objective--that is, there is a reality beyond anyone's perception of it--any one of us would be hard-pressed to pin it down. We build our lives and societies primarily on the perceptions we share.
I also believe that the objective truth can give us glimpses of reality, melting through our perceptions to show us things as they really are.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justice and morality are subjective, although that does not mean that I would agree with the statement, "all moral systems are equally valid."
Reality is objective. Perception, as advice for robots noted, is almost entirely subjective. That being said, there are ways to ensure that your subjective perception of something better approximates the reality of that thing. See: Scientific Method, The.
"Truth" has to be better defined before I'd be willing to weigh in. In fact, in my experience, the definition of "truth" is often the most subjective thing of all.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Do you mean, say, that given a proposition one can assign a true or false value to it?
For example: I am writing this at 11:07.
I would say this is true. However, it is a well known consequence of relativity that there is no absolute time, so another observer (in a different reference frame) would legitimately give that proposition a false.
Other types of propositions have similar issues.
As for morality - do you mean is there an absolute morality, because there are plenty of competing moral theories. I think one's choice of moral theory is very much influenced by one's culture.
Incidentally, "Mortal Questions" by Thomas Nagel has an excellent article on the subjective and objective.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that reality is objective in the sense that there's something outside me causing me to see, hear, etc. as I do. I can't strictly prove it, but it's the simplest explanation for why my room looks basically the same in the morning as it does when I return in the evening.
I think truth is objective in the sense that certain things are just true; e.g., either the Earth orbits around the Sun or it doesn't. People may have different opinions on what is true, of course. I suppose this is a corollary of reality being objective.
Justice is a particular case of morality, so I can treat the former under the latter. I think morality is subjective in the sense that nothing is just right or just wrong; there are only things that strike people as being in harmony or out of harmony. Things could theoretically have a physically undetectable "morality quality", but I'm not sure what forces me to believe this is so.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that the universe is expanding, it is conceivable that one day life could exist on a planet that is too far removed from the Big Bang to ever confidently prove that there was, in fact, a Big Bang.
In this way, I distinguish objective reality from a subjective ability to discern that reality. Just because we are limited in such a way that makes objective reality beyond our ability to apprehend, does not mean that there is no objective reality.
Truth and morality can be fit within the same rubric. It is conceivable that there is a universal right and wrong but beyond our ability to confidently determine.
I suspect justice is somewhat more slippery. Or at least, somewhat more profoundly tied to subjective considerations. But this may be due to not thinking it through with the same attention as the others.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If everything is relative to self, how can we justify morality, justice, or truth? If all three are relative, how can there be any of these in society?
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Everything is relative to self, thus, everything is subjective.
Questionable. But even if true, an interesting discussion can be had about the relative degree to which reality etc are subjective.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mercury: If everything is relative to self, how can we justify morality, justice, or truth? If all three are relative, how can there be any of these in society?
This isn't really an issue - a society can simply choose standards for each of these e.g. society can function whether or not everyone believes that murder is "absolutely immoral"; it just needs people not to do it, whatever the reason (e.g. they will be sent to jail or executed etc.). Of course, if people believe these things independently they are less likely to do them when they can get away.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Mercury: If everything is relative to self, how can we justify morality, justice, or truth? If all three are relative, how can there be any of these in society? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't really an issue - a society can simply choose standards for each of these e.g. society can function whether or not everyone believes that murder is "absolutely immoral"; it just needs people not to do it, whatever the reason (e.g. they will be sent to jail or executed etc.). Of course, if people believe these things independently they are less likely to do them when they can get away.
Agreed. As I said, instead of it being merely objective, ideas about morality and justice sometimes enjoy a high rate of common subjectivity. So if enough people believe the same thing, they can then build a society around their common views and enforce them.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mercury: If everything is relative to self, how can we justify morality, justice, or truth? If all three are relative, how can there be any of these in society?
This isn't really an issue - a society can simply choose standards for each of these e.g. society can function whether or not everyone believes that murder is "absolutely immoral"; it just needs people not to do it, whatever the reason (e.g. they will be sent to jail or executed etc.). Of course, if people believe these things independently they are less likely to do them when they can get away.
I think it is the only issue.
I don't believe a society can function without an objective justification for these standards. It's like when a child does something bad, and the parent says, "Because I said so." There must be objective reasons behind why murder is wrong, or why it is wrong to steal. You cannot maintain a society in which the only thing stopping citizens from doing wrong is fear of punishment, unless your government is totalitarian. As long as a person can reasonably assume they will not be caught, they will freely engage in their crime because morality is "relative."
And if we have no moral authority to punish them, what does that say about us? If you believe morality is completely relative, how can you possibly justify punishing someone of a different morality?
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because you accept that morality is relative to the individual doesn't mean that you yourself believe the two are equal. You obviously will believe that your sense or morality is superior and better thus elevating you to the point were you can justify punishing them. If enough people hold a collective view then they can determine that to be the standard and punish those who oppose it.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
And if we have no moral authority to punish them, what does that say about us? If you believe morality is completely relative, how can you possibly justify punishing someone of a different morality? [/QB]
A few points: 1) You would not resort to morality as the justification for punishment. You might punish stealing because it is against the law, and if the law was broken with impunity then others would break it and chaos would ensue.
2)Read Freakonomics. On little things like honor systems with coffee, when they will not be caught, people act very immorally.
3)Even with absolutist moral systems (as against, say, utilitarianism) it's very hard to come up with absolute moral imperatives. Killing would seem a likely one, but we allow exceptions such as self-defense (and preemptive self-defense, for that matter).
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mercury: If everything is relative to self, how can we justify morality, justice, or truth? If all three are relative, how can there be any of these in society?
This isn't really an issue - a society can simply choose standards for each of these e.g. society can function whether or not everyone believes that murder is "absolutely immoral"; it just needs people not to do it, whatever the reason (e.g. they will be sent to jail or executed etc.). Of course, if people believe these things independently they are less likely to do them when they can get away.
I think it is the only issue.
I don't believe a society can function without an objective justification for these standards. It's like when a child does something bad, and the parent says, "Because I said so." There must be objective reasons behind why murder is wrong, or why it is wrong to steal. You cannot maintain a society in which the only thing stopping citizens from doing wrong is fear of punishment, unless your government is totalitarian. As long as a person can reasonably assume they will not be caught, they will freely engage in their crime because morality is "relative."
And if we have no moral authority to punish them, what does that say about us? If you believe morality is completely relative, how can you possibly justify punishing someone of a different morality?
I think your conclusion is actually that the members of a society should believe that the morality they adhere to is objective (independent on whether it actually is).
This might make for a peaceful society, however I think it makes that society resist correcting errors e.g. 1700s US apparently did not regard slavery as immoral.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't believe a society can function without an objective justification for these standards. It's like when a child does something bad, and the parent says, "Because I said so." There must be objective reasons behind why murder is wrong, or why it is wrong to steal.
Just for the sake of argument, I would say that "because Mom said so" can be a perfectly valid reason for a child to refrain from or engage in an activity. But, then, I believe that the mere act of obeying immediately and without question is an important lesson for a child to learn. If you teach your child to always ask why, they'll still be questioning you when they should be jumping out from in front of an oncoming car. The "why" is okay, just not until after the obedience.
That said, I think that premise is only useful in a family unit, and not in the community, because it would presuppose that there are members in society who know better than others and should be obeyed without question. I can't think of a scenario, other than the rearing of small children, where that would be true or applicable.
But my point is that one society, at least, the family, can exist and function with a morality that would appear completely subjective to some of its members.
ETA: Of course, after posting this it occurred to me that various religious groups would also fall under this category.
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: What do you mean by truth?
Do you mean, say, that given a proposition one can assign a true or false value to it?
For example: I am writing this at 11:07.
I would say this is true. However, it is a well known consequence of relativity that there is no absolute time, so another observer (in a different reference frame) would legitimately give that proposition a false.
I wouldn't say that this scenario is a result of the subjectivity of Truth, rather it's simply a consequence of inaccurate use of language.
You were indeed writing at 11:07 from your own frame of reference. Someone being in a different time zone or any other different frame of reference doesn't make that fact untrue.
It is simply ALSO true, that from their frame of reference, you were writing that at another time, relative to their experience.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: What do you mean by truth?
Do you mean, say, that given a proposition one can assign a true or false value to it?
For example: I am writing this at 11:07.
I would say this is true. However, it is a well known consequence of relativity that there is no absolute time, so another observer (in a different reference frame) would legitimately give that proposition a false.
I wouldn't say that this scenario is a result of the subjectivity of Truth, rather it's simply a consequence of inaccurate use of language.
You were indeed writing at 11:07 from your own frame of reference. Someone being in a different time zone or any other different frame of reference doesn't make that fact untrue.
It is simply ALSO true, that from their frame of reference, you were writing that at another time, relative to their experience.
I think we're basically in agreement - even simple propositions have contingent truth values. I should probably have said 11:07 PT to eliminate the time zones ambiguity (which is just a matter of normalization).
Fleshing out your comment about language: if two observers traveling at relativistic speeds view the same event they will disagree on when said event occurred (this is why Mazer was still alive). This means propositions of the form "X occurred at Y" does not have an absolute truth value. I guess your point is that you can enlarge the proposition to "X occurred at Y when measured by Z" and this has an absolute truth value. But if you have to specify an observer in order to ascertain the truth of a proposition, then surely that is subjectifying the truth with respect to the observer. In summary, I think I agree with you.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't say specifying the observer makes it subjective truth, it just requires extra accuracy. I can say Oklahoma is East, someone in New York will say it's West. That doesn't mean Oklahoma occupies some subjective location - it is where it is. We just have to be accurate in our descriptions.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We were talking about the truth value of propositions, not the truth value of underlying reality. If I say "Oklahoma is West of California" then I am making a false statement (ignoring the fact that if I go West for long enough I will reach Oklahoma eventually). What makes this example relatively uninteresting is that anyone familiar with the geography of the US would be able answer false. In the time example, different observers measure the same event at different times, so there is a genuine question as to what the answer actually is.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't believe a society can function without an objective justification for these standards. It's like when a child does something bad, and the parent says, "Because I said so." There must be objective reasons behind why murder is wrong, or why it is wrong to steal.
Just for the sake of argument, I would say that "because Mom said so" can be a perfectly valid reason for a child to refrain from or engage in an activity. But, then, I believe that the mere act of obeying immediately and without question is an important lesson for a child to learn. If you teach your child to always ask why, they'll still be questioning you when they should be jumping out from in front of an oncoming car. The "why" is okay, just not until after the obedience.
That said, I think that premise is only useful in a family unit, and not in the community, because it would presuppose that there are members in society who know better than others and should be obeyed without question. I can't think of a scenario, other than the rearing of small children, where that would be true or applicable.
But my point is that one society, at least, the family, can exist and function with a morality that would appear completely subjective to some of its members.
ETA: Of course, after posting this it occurred to me that various religious groups would also fall under this category.
I agree with you about the relationship between parent and child. My point was only that it doesn't work when it is being applied outside of the family unit. There must be some basis for law, some objective basis for individual rights.
Though I understand the point about one morality being less subjective than the other.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: In the time example, different observers measure the same event at different times, so there is a genuine question as to what the answer actually is.
I'm not sure that's the case though. I think in the time example, the answer is both. Both answers are correct, from their own frame of reference. We can establish from each frame of reference what the correct answer is, and what would be incorrect answers. We can know the answer definitively from each frame of reference, and everyone can agree on those answers, if given the correct framework with which to judge the answer. So I'd say they're objective, simply complex and objective.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I'm wrapping my mind around this right (I've been up all night):
Truth in itself would almost have to be objective considering that's partly what defines objectivity. If you hold that it's an absolute truth and not a personal truth. Personal truth is almost always subjective in my opinion.
Justice would be objective or subjective depending on who was doing the observing. If we as a society have certain set laws that we all abide by and someone breaks them and is punished, objectively justice has been dealt. However, to a person who has committed a violent act against someone who harmed one of their family members justice becomes subjective to them and objective to society.
Morality I consider to be completely subjective considering morals, to me , is something more defined by self. Morality is only objective when judging others I think.
Reality I think is the same way I believe. Take for example the color blind. To you an object may be one color, but to the color blind it is a completely different color. Your reality differs from theirs, but is yet still reality.
Posts: 115 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
All four are objective if defined correctly. The problem is, you're using terms without defining them. All vague terms are subjective, pretty much by definition. Even reality is subjective if by reality you mean "my personal impressions of the way things are", which is how most people use the word.
The questions you asked can't properly be addressed until you define what you mean by truth, justice, morality and reality.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In order for each of those four things to exist meaningfully, they must exist as something fixed and objective...
Why?
Because that's part of what it means to exist.
If there is a rock sitting in front of me, then it must exist as something fixed and objective - meaning that if the rock is granite, then the rock is granite for everyone. Whereas if I just imagine a rock sitting in front of me, it is entirely subjective and thus doesn't actually exist. Although even in that case the image of the rock in my mind does exist, and exists as something fixed and objective - meaning if the image of the rock in my mind is brown, then the image of the rock in my mind is brown for everyone.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's an interesting question. How do you know that what you see as brown is what I see as brown? I mean, we might both agree that it's brown, but we might see brown differently.
My daughter is color blind. She clearly sees colors, but just as clearly, she doesn't see them the way I do. We'll both look at something red and say, "That's red". And we'll both look at something green and say, "That's green". But if they're of the same intensity and you put them right next to each other, she can't tell them apart. Whereas they look completely different to me. So while something might be red for everyone, that doesn't mean that we all see it the same way.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: All four are objective if defined correctly. The problem is, you're using terms without defining them. All vague terms are subjective, pretty much by definition.
Yes, but whose definition is correct? I guess a big part of the reason that I see these terms as subjective is because they are not consistently defined.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say that what I see as brown is, objectively, a certain way. And I'd say that what you see as brown is, objectively, a certain way. But when we both point to a brown rock and start discussing the "brownness" of it, I think we are now talking about a subjective abstraction that doesn't actually exist. We'd be talking as if there was some brownness that is literally in the rock, that we both see, when in reality we are talking about two different things - the image in your mind and the image in my mind. We assume they are the identical even though, as your daughter proves, they might not be. So, the color of the rock isn't so much something that really exists as it is a tool to communicate with eachother about how we each perceive the rock.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Asking "whose definition is correct" is missing the point, at least for philosophical discussions. The idea is that you clearly explain what you mean by a certain word or phrase, and once everyone understands the terms of the discussion, you can say what you like on the matter. Of course, when you get into philosophy of the mind, and, to a lesser extent, metaphysics, half the discussion is just pinning down the definitions. Which is why I try to avoid discussing those subjects on Hatrack; they require all discussion participants to have some read some basic texts for the discussion to go much of anywhere.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whereas if I just imagine a rock sitting in front of me, it is entirely subjective and thus doesn't actually exist.
The problem you're going to have here is the definition of terms.
Yes, "truth" is fixed and objective in the sense that the concept of truth as possessed by a given individual is fixed in his or her mind. But this does not mean that we can say "truth is objective," because "objective" in this case is referring to a shared external context rather than any internal context.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Asking "whose definition is correct" is missing the point, at least for philosophical discussions. The idea is that you clearly explain what you mean by a certain word or phrase, and once everyone understands the terms of the discussion, you can say what you like on the matter.
Of course, when you get into philosophy of the mind, and, to a lesser extent, metaphysics, half the discussion is just pinning down the definitions. Which is why I try to avoid discussing those subjects on Hatrack; they require all discussion participants to have some read some basic texts for the discussion to go much of anywhere.
Or else a lot more patience and investment of time into the process described in the first half of your post. Probably a lot more than most people are willing to (or have time to) invest in a message-board discussion.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's just difficult to have that discussion on a forum, even if everyone involved is committed to the discussion. I mean, check out this thread just to see the amount of time & typing it took to make sure everyone was on the same page regarding a few propositions. And that was an incredibly focused discussion, where everyone had access to the exact definitions of things, and everyone was trying hard to understand and be understood.
Trying to have a similarly focused discussion on a forum on something as large as the nature of reality just boggles me.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is more of a question of personal perception than a question that has an answer. I enjoyed how it made me evaluate my own beliefs, and then question them again and again to find out how I really felt about each.
Posts: 115 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: All four are objective if defined correctly. The problem is, you're using terms without defining them. All vague terms are subjective, pretty much by definition.
Yes, but whose definition is correct? I guess a big part of the reason that I see these terms as subjective is because they are not consistently defined.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
