(March 5, 2017 at 10:58 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(March 5, 2017 at 9:07 pm)Nonpareil Wrote: But they are still subjective.
It just happens that the viewpoint they are subject to is that of the culture or species.
Sure, they're subjective in the sense that they are experienced as ideas by people. They're also objective-- they are the outcome of a physical system, starting with the Big Bang, moving through the evolution of life, the evolution of the human brain, the expression of DNA in individual members of the species, the physical interactions between their brains and the environment and so on. It's all just part of the big machine called the Universe, n'est ce pas?
"Subject" and "object" are only diametrically opposed in a particular relationship. If I'm looking at a bird, that bird is the object which I subjectively experience; that bird has (I believe) an objective reality-- it simply is what it is. At the same time, the bird is eyeing a juicy worm: it's having a subjective experience about its object, the worm. So is the bird's existence subjective or objective? Given that the bird isn't a philosophical zombie, then it's clearly both.
If I consider the moral ideas of other people, those are objective-- they are what they are, essentially written in stone-- either in the laws of the land or in the behaviors of its citizens. I can (perfectly objectively) say that most people in country X think Y, and that most people in another country think Z. I can tabulate data, dig through texts and do statistical analyses on them, I can do surveys, and so on.
There is a difference between subjective and objective truths, as it was already shown here.
Hail Satan! 
