The Tanager wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 11:35 am
You aren't judging it non-objectively. You are saying there is the same judgment for everyone who commits child abuse (and when asked what your judgment is we see it is: you aren't to do it). That's objectivism. The objective standard you are appealing to is how one person's body reacts to child abuse and you are using that one standard for everyone.
How is that objective when I am appealing to how my body is reacting, i.e. something that is not an objective feature of reality?
That is analogous to appealing to how one person's body reacts to vanilla ice cream and then judging everyone's eating choice by that one standard, where they are wrong if they don't like or eat vanilla. You would not call that subjectivism proper, but it's parallel to what you are doing regarding child abuse.
Yes, but I would not call that objectivism either, I would call that simple subjectivism. And I would appeal to simple subjectivism because subjectivism proper is true.
Because there is an accurate answer to the concept being asked about. What is good ice cream for everyone in existence has an accurate answer. The answer is different for different people, but there is still an accurate answer.
That's not the kind of "accuracy" that is analogous to the accurate shape of the Earth.
I think 'judge' as a term is causing the confusion. The judgment of people is different than the judgment of your bodily reaction. In my language, you aren't judging people if all you are doing is sharing your bodily reaction to people's actions. In my language, judging people is within the category of the objectivism/non-objectivism issue, not simple subjectivism at all.
You mentioned that before, in response I said it doesn't sound right that when I say vanilla is better than chocolate, I am not judging ice-cream. You seemed to have agreed to that much.
I think I share my preference, with no judgment being made. I think standard has no role to play and that calling my sharing a preference as making a judgment on my preference is confusing. To me making a judgment is saying X is good or bad. When I say I prefer chocolate, I'm not saying that my preference for chocolate is good; I'm just saying that I prefer chocolate to vanilla.
That is kind of confusing, as you seem to be getting two things mixed up with your two clause here. While we can both agree that when I says "I prefer vanilla," I am not saying that "
my preference for vanilla is good," the question is whether "I prefer vanilla" is equal to "vanilla is good (i.e. a judgment)" or not. "Judgement on my preference" is confusing because I was asking about judgement on ice-cream.
You say that saying I prefer chocolate is making a judgment of chocolate over vanilla. This runs into trouble when a non-objectivist would say that they prefer chocolate, but don't judge chocolate to be better than vanilla...
Well you are not talking to such non-objectivists now. You can figure our what language you share with him when you debate one.
I think those mean the same thing, too. But those non-objectivists call themselves subjectivists, too. They do so because they judge the answer to the general question in light of a truth about the subject being discussed, rather than some objective fact outside of the subject being discussed (such as how it affects the judge's own body).
I think they may be better off calling themselves agent relativists. Perhaps more to the point, is "ice-cream is tasty" same or different to "ice-cream is good;" and is "my body reacts to ice-cream pleasantly" same or different to "I prefer ice-cream?" I sense some inconsistency here, because to me, "ice-cream is tasty" is the same as "ice-cream is good;" and "my body reacts to ice-cream pleasantly" is the same as "I prefer ice-cream."
In your usage you are saying that to judge someone (i.e. share what one's preference is) is subjective because it comes from you. It is trivially true that one's statement is their statement (i.e., comes from them). If that is what subjective means, then every single opinion, including one's view on the shape of the Earth is subjective because they shared their preference instead of someone else's. This doesn't tell us anything about what kind of opinion one holds. I think you hold an objective kind of opinion on Johnny's action of child abuse, where that opinion is the same for anyone who is in the situation of whether they should abuse this child or not. A subjective kind of opinion is where what is good ice cream changes depending on who is in the situation of eating ice cream.
All opinion are subjective. The opinion that Earth is a ball is not objective, instead it's just irrelevant since the shape of the Earth is not a matter of opinion, there is an objective shape.
But you aren't judging Johnny's action, you are "judging" your body's reaction to Johnny's action. What is your judgment there?
To make a judgment is to say X is good or bad, here I am saying Johnny is bad. I've said nothing about whether my body's reaction to Johnny's action is good or bad.
It seems to be that your body's reaction (your preference), something objectively true for Johnny, is the standard to judge Johnny's action by. That's objectivism.
Same as above, how is something that is not a feature of objective reality, objectively true for Johnny?
Let's say I have an idea of a cat and a dog. You don't think a dog exists, but you can still see that it is a different concept...
As I keep telling you, that's not my stance, I think dogs exists, they are literally cats; that's a very different stance to dogs don't exist.
I'm telling you that, knowing how you use the phrases, that I still have two distinct concepts. Saying that you don't accept that a dog exists does not mean it is just a synonym for a cat. This is what you seem to be doing here. You tell me the phrase that I use for the second concept, you use it as a synonym for the first concept. Okay, but I know what you mean by that first concept and I know there is a second concept out there. Call it kerfluffel for all I care. Are you really arguing that, no, my second concept isn't really a different concept at all, rather than just saying that you don't think kerfluffels exist?
Yes. Your second concept isn't really a different concept, it's the same as the first one. Since the first concept exists, it follows trivially that kerfluffel exists.
My body reacts to women in an objectifying way. I think I am kerfluffle if I act on that and continue to objectify women. How is there only one concept there rather than you saying that kerfluffle is a fictional concept? The concepts directly contradict each other.
You asked me this before, it's not that there are two concepts contradicting, it's two conflicting instances of the same concept. I gave you an example: I prefer vanilla over chocolate, I also prefer varieties. Which means I often eat vanilla, sometimes I pick chocolate favor instead. Here is another example, I prefer ice-cream, I also prefer good health. Which means I don't eat ice-cream every meal. All of these are instances of the same concept: my preferences.
