(May 16, 2017 at 8:45 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(May 16, 2017 at 4:14 am)Whateverist Wrote: I wonder what exactly you feel adding "objectively" here adds to what you're saying...Is an assertion that something is humorous or beautiful likewise enhanced by adding that it is "objectively" so? Also, why is your standing up for a value you think is "objectively" correct supposed to have more value than my standing up for a subjective value I hold which I recognize not everyone may share? Something about this feels off to me. Do see what I mean?
One indicates an imperative. The other is a preference. Consider circumstances of ambiguity where the outcome of someone's decisions could go various ways. If there is an imperative then it is incumbent on the agent to determine, as best he can, the right course of action. If there is no imperative then the choice has no import and any outcome will do. The qualifier of objectivity adds real significance to action, facts that exists beyond one's own opinions.
Doesn't look like there will be any way of talking past each other here. That still seems like a difference without a difference. Moral situations which I feel strongly about feel imperative to me too. That doesn't mean there can't be contravening imperatives which prevent either one of us from acting against one of two such values. Saying that yours are objective won't prevent you failing to perform both A and not A. Both the objectivist and the subjectivist can account for anguish and tragedy. Insisting that either one is less than fully (and morally) human isn't anything I'd want to claim, and under subjectivism I don't have to.
