I've seen these terms (objective and subjective) thrown around in many different ways. I am surprised when the two terms are placed in opposition. So I thought we could discuss a possible common understanding moving forward.

1. SUBJECTIVELY AND OBJECTIVELY

Everyone here is a subject. 

You as subject: All of YOUR personal judgments, affect, intentions, opinions, etc. form your SUBJECTIVE experience of OBJECTS.

EVERYTHING is an object, including all of you.

Objects are the things, real or otherwise, about which your personal judgments, affect, intentions, opinions, etc. can be made.

To speak about things "SUBJECTIVELY" means to speak about objects in the context of a particular subject's or subjects' experience of objects acting.

To speak about things "OBJECTIVELY" means an attempt to speak about objects in the context of the way in which an object's or objects' act (which would include those acts which do not elicit experiences in subjects)

Objectivity is an attempt to speak about objects without the "bias" "fallibility" or "individuality" of subjective human experience, even while being based upon the subjective experience of humanity itself.

2. SUBJECTIVE REALITY AND OBJECTIVE REALITY

[u]Objects[/u] act on subjects causing experiences in the subject. 

Subjects may also act on objects eliciting new acts from the object, and therefore new experiences in the subject.

Any experience in a subject IS a subjective reality.

The objects causing these experiences may or may not be real.

To speak about "subjective reality" means that the subjective experience about which we speak is real.

To speak about "objective reality" means that the object about which we speak is real.

e.g. To say "an objective morality exists" is to say that there is one real object which causes the varied and subjective human experience of morality.

To say "no objective morality exists" is to say that there is no object causes the subjective human experience of morality.

To say "there is not 'true' or 'superior' morality" is to say either that many objects cause different subjective human experience, or that the subjective human experience of morality (whatever causes it) is itself the object of morality.

Quote:To say "an objective morality exists" is to say that there is one real object which causes the varied and subjective human experience of morality.

Mightn't we as well say that there are 'multiple real objects which cause the varied and subjective human experience of morality'? Why restrict it to one?

Boru

Well that's just your subjective opinion.

Consistency is subjective. I object to the consistency of objective morals.

Your dualism and dichotomy both fails and is philosophically unsophisticated.

All ontology is objective, even subjects. All things are objects, including living things and subjects.

There is a contradiction between epistemic subjectivity and epistemic objectivity. There is no such contradiction regarding ontology.

(November 12, 2016 at 7:22 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:To say "an objective morality exists" is to say that there is one real object which causes the varied and subjective human experience of morality.

Mightn't we as well say that there are 'multiple real objects which cause the varied and subjective human experience of morality'?  Why restrict it to one?

Boru

Sure, we might say that. In fact, I already did =):

Ignorant Wrote: To say "there is not 'true' or 'superior' morality" is to say either that many objects cause different subjective human experience...

(November 12, 2016 at 8:46 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Your dualism and dichotomy both fails and is philosophically unsophisticated. [1]

All ontology is objective, even subjects. All things are objects [a] , including living things and subjects ['b'][2]

There is no such contradiction regarding ontology. [3]

There is a contradiction between epistemic subjectivity and epistemic objectivity. [4]

1) Great, then you can help me out.

2) I said that in the OP:

Ignorant Wrote:Everyone here is a subject ... a EVERYTHING is an object [a], including all of you.['b']

3) Agreed, in the OP I expressed that it surprises me when people propose a contradiction:

Ignorant Wrote:I am surprised when the two terms are placed in opposition.

4) Would you mind explaining the nature of the difference?

(November 12, 2016 at 7:49 am)Jesster Wrote: Well that's just your subjective opinion.

Do you think my subjective opinion corresponds well to any objective reality?

It doesn't surprise me when people propose an objection.  More often than not "people" have been taught some strange things about their god and it's morality, lol.  They are compelled to maintain the truth of these statements over and above any understanding of the terms.....to be blunt, if they -did- understand the terms it would be difficult to maintain the beliefs which leverage them, lol.  

The obvious utility of ignorance presents itself, yet again.

-as elaboration on the above.

The terms are leveraged in certain faith traditions as trigger words, nothing more or less.  That's why it's so easy to turn someone into a flaming car wreck from the other side of the god aisle.  The Atheist™ (lol) can rely on a certain reflexive behavior if we invoke them, and we can expect predictable behavior when they are invoked.  It's more than a little bit unfortunate that their faith traditions have ill-equippd them so egregiously, and then suggested or implied that they should go out into the world fishing for men with a broken reel.

(I'm sure that there are certain folks out there, who read this, and reflexively want to argue against every single jot and tittle ....but that..ofc, only strengthens the point)