I was searching some, and it would seem that the discussion on objective vs subjective is old and varied. So I thought I would clarify by what I am meaning by objective. When referring to objective; I am referring to something outside of and independent of the subject. This would be something which is either true or false, regardless of the person observing it. For instance the statement "God is real" is objective. We may disagree and point to different reason as to why we think this is true of false, but the statement is true or not regardless of what we think. Conversely "subjective" is dependent on the individual and isolated to the person making the statement. Subjective views are internal and cannot be known by an outsider. Knowledge, tastes, emotions, preferences, and opinions are all subjective. Subjective views are based on the subject, and therefore opposing views can equally be valid as the subject changes.
Part of the difficulty, is there is always a subjective component to our observation of objective reality. In my search, I have found that the view that logic/reason is subjective is more pervasive than I originally thought. Some take a materialist view, and that which cannot be tested by science is subjective. However the problem with this, and if we are speaking of the same terms I defined above, is that view is then subjective, and I am not required to agree.
I do think that the ontology or nature of morality is important in the discussion. It is pointed out that I cannot prove that morality is objective, and I agree. That it is subjective equally cannot be shown. I think that the question is if there are absolute morals, in which something is always wrong, regardless of personal views or preferences. Even after a discussion such as this, do we act as if morals are subjective or do we think that morality is outside of ourselves and something that others should recognize. I think that the answer is in this thread. We appeal to morals similarly as we appeal to logic. We say someone can be incorrect in their logic, and they can be incorrect in the morals. How can this be, if it is subjective.
Part of the difficulty, is there is always a subjective component to our observation of objective reality. In my search, I have found that the view that logic/reason is subjective is more pervasive than I originally thought. Some take a materialist view, and that which cannot be tested by science is subjective. However the problem with this, and if we are speaking of the same terms I defined above, is that view is then subjective, and I am not required to agree.
I do think that the ontology or nature of morality is important in the discussion. It is pointed out that I cannot prove that morality is objective, and I agree. That it is subjective equally cannot be shown. I think that the question is if there are absolute morals, in which something is always wrong, regardless of personal views or preferences. Even after a discussion such as this, do we act as if morals are subjective or do we think that morality is outside of ourselves and something that others should recognize. I think that the answer is in this thread. We appeal to morals similarly as we appeal to logic. We say someone can be incorrect in their logic, and they can be incorrect in the morals. How can this be, if it is subjective.
