The Tanager wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:55 pm
Why is that weird?
Because that's clearly me stating my own subjective opinion.
If that is not objectivism, then one is (trivially) repeating one's self by connecting two words as synonyms. In other words, we aren't being told any new information. It's like saying "I like the Monsters of the Midway because I like the 1985 Chicago Bears."
Yes, we've been through this. Subjectivism is supposed to be trivial, just people stating what they like for arbitrary reasons that boils down to "that's how I roll."
Objectivism is the belief that the same action should be undertaken by everyone that finds themself in the same situation. There is only one truth in how one should act.
No, that's not it at all: "it is objectively moral when Bob does child abuse, but objectively immoral when Johnny does child abuse, these statements are objectively true" is an example of objectivism, yet different action should be taken depending on whether it's Bob or Johnny.
Subjectivity does not refer to what one person's taste or opinion is. Subjectivity refers to the answer for a singular question being fluid, dependent upon different tastes or opinions. It's a term that denotes that people feel different from each other and that the truth of statements takes this fact into account.
That implies that if everyone universally likes the same food, then some food is objectively tasty, even though we are talking about likes and dislikes. You still don't think that's weird?
That may not be different. I dislike objectifying women. Objectifying women feels great in my body. Those are different statements.
"I like ice-cream" and "ice-cream feels bad in my mouth" are different statements too, why would that mean "I like ice-cream" and "ice-cream feels good in my mouth" aren't synonymous.
Back to the statement you were asking me about. I have a certain emotional reaction when thinking about people liking different ice cream flavors. Whatever that emotional reaction is. I like it. I don't like it. Doesn't matter. Regardless of that emotional reaction, the statement was that I think some people should eat chocolate and some vanilla because of (1) what emotional response they feel to chocolate and vanilla, not because of (2) how I feel about how they like different flavors from each other. That you see (1) and (2) as the same thing is baffling to me.
How about "I think some people should eat chocolate and some vanilla because of [regardless of whatever reason you want to put in here]" is the same thing as "this is how I feel about people eating chocolate and vanilla?"