NationStates Jolt Archive

This is something I've been confused about for a while. I've got a rather weird philosophy and I'm not sure which one it is. It might not be either, but I don't know of any other categories.

Here's the gist of it: I think that the only way to solve the big philosophical questions is to translate them into empirical claims. These claims can then be tested with reference to objective reality. In the case of morality the task gets a little complicated, but basically revolves around divining what methods we use to choose the "right" morality. Since we can't say that any system is "better" than any other logically without having a system already there to begin with, we must be using something other than logic to debate which moral system is "right". The way that people find that system then can indicate what the "correct" system would be.

So, am I subjectivist or objectivist? Am I neither? Both? Something else? Really pointless?

This is something I've been confused about for a while. I've got a rather weird philosophy and I'm not sure which one it is. It might not be either, but I don't know of any other categories.

Here's the gist of it: I think that the only way to solve the big philosophical questions is to translate them into empirical claims. These claims can then be tested with reference to objective reality. In the case of morality the task gets a little complicated, but basically revolves around divining what methods we use to choose the "right" morality. Since we can't say that any system is "better" than any other logically without having a system already there to begin with, we must be using something other than logic to debate which moral system is "right". The way that people find that system then can indicate what the "correct" system would be.

So, am I subjectivist or objectivist? Am I neither? Both? Something else? Really pointless?

You're an Istist.

You're an Istist.

Or maybe an Ististist?

Or maybe an Ististist?
No, you're just an Istierist than most Istists, not quite an Ististist.
Now, if you started speaking in Latin and spouting blood out of your eyes, well then you'd be bat shit insane.

Nobody can be objective, because you are a subject, and are thus subjective.

Sounds fairly Objectivist to me. Moral Objectivism refers to the practice of referencing ethics with objective, value-based criteria; and doesn't always mean that the morals themselves are sweeping declarations like the ten commandments or something. A lot of people fall into the trap of assuming that all brands of moral objecitivism hinge around ignoring conctext or circumstance, preferring instead to assume that we're prescribing some exact action in every situation.

Your synopsis seems to contain shades of both moral subjectivism and objectivism, and while I'd tend to think it leans slightly towards the objective side of things, I can't really answer your question because, simply put, only you know the answer.

Nobody can be objective, because you are a subject, and are thus subjective.
Then, since all objectivity is an astracted viewpoint, there can be objectivity for any subject.

Moral Objectivism refers to the practice of referencing ethics with objective, value-based criteria;

I dont see how objective value-based criteria can be established.

Then, since all objectivity is an astracted viewpoint, there can be objectivity for any subject.
Objectivity refers to perception of things as they actually are. I doubt very much that it is something human beings are capable of.

I've always considered objectivity to be an illusory ideal at best. All it amounts to is a collective subjectivity.

Then, since all objectivity is an astracted viewpoint, there can be objectivity for any subject.

There certainly can be objectivity for a subject. But not from a subject's perspective. We are all subjects, so we cannot be objective, for we are affected by what we think.

I dont see how objective value-based criteria can be established.
.

Obviously you have never done LD debate. "My value is Justice and my Criterion is...." You get the picture. One can establish objective values simply by declaring them. That's how much of philosophy works.

In some ways my philosophy is trying to get away from that trend by attempting to actually find what these values are based on. It's still values, but it puts the values' source in people. But it might be that that source establishes a universal set of values. That's where the confusion sets in.

There certainly can be objectivity for a subject. But not from a subject's perspective. We are all subjects, so we cannot be objective, for we are affected by what we think.

I don't want to be a subject! Viva la revolution!

There certainly can be objectivity for a subject. But not from a subject's perspective. We are all subjects, so we cannot be objective, for we are affected by what we think.
We can be objective. We astract the objective perspective in order to be objective.

Can I just ask, why the need to put a label on yourself?

Obviously you have never done LD debate. "My value is Justice and my Criterion is...." You get the picture. One can establish objective values simply by declaring them. That's how much of philosophy works.
That is not establishing objective value or criteria, that is simply positing values.

In some ways my philosophy is trying to get away from that trend by attempting to actually find what these values are based on.
That is what my question was directed at. So far as I can tell, human beings are not capable of establishing than any moral/ethical value is not ultimately based on subjectivity.

It's still values, but it puts the values' source in people.
Unless you want to branch out into theology, where-ever else would the values come but from people?

But it might be that that source establishes a universal set of values.
I suppose it's not impossible, the fact that it apparently never yet has done so, in all the history of anatomically modern humans doesnt prove that it wont at some future time do so...

We can be objective. We astract the objective perspective in order to be objective.
How can you perceive things as they actually are if you are not able to percieve them as they actually are? To be objective means to be able to percieve actuality, (rather than merely those parts of actuality percievable to anyone subjective perceiver at a particular time). Human beings so far as I can tell are quite simply not capable of perceiving reality/actuality as it actually is, which places objectivity outside out capability.

Can I just ask, why the need to put a label on yourself?

It first came up on the "What kind of atheist are you?" thread. After I made the options, I realized I didn't actually know which to pick. I'm trying to stop that sort of problem from happening again.

Plus, I like labels.

How can you perceive things as they actually are if you are not able to percieve them as they actually are? To be objective means to be able to percieve actuality, (rather than merely those parts of actuality percievable to anyone subjective perceiver at a particular time). Human beings so far as I can tell are quite simply not capable of perceiving reality/actuality as it actually is, which places objectivity outside out capability.

Except that we are capable of perceiving our own part of objective reality because we know what we get out of our senses. I can know what I sense, and I can try to find patterns in those sensations. That's how science works.

In any case, this thread's not really about objective reality. I know I'm an empiricist, but I want to know how my moral stance would be classified.

Except that we are capable of perceiving our own part of objective reality because we know what we get out of our senses. I can know what I sense, and I can try to find patterns in those sensations. That's how science works.
Can you know what you sense? I would suggest you perceive, but that is not the same as knowing what you sense. I dont know that objective reality has parts, in fact I suggest the notion of part is a product of subjective perception.

How can you perceive things as they actually are if you are not able to percieve them as they actually are? To be objective means to be able to percieve actuality, (rather than merely those parts of actuality percievable to anyone subjective perceiver at a particular time). Human beings so far as I can tell are quite simply not capable of perceiving reality/actuality as it actually is, which places objectivity outside out capability.
How they "actually are" is irrelevant to the objective perspective. Perceived reality is things perceived as being objective to us; and, in the other context, in order to "be objective" we astract a viewpoint apart from us.

anyway, this is off-topic

Can you know what you sense? I would suggest you perceive, but that is not the same as knowing what you sense. I dont know that objective reality has parts, in fact I suggest the notion of part is a product of subjective perception.

But you know what you perceive, and you can compare your various perceptions and see patterns in them. When your perceptions change you can infer what might have changed in the surrounding objective reality. As an example: on another thread awhile back I was arguing with someone about this, and they brought up the point that sometimes they feel like their clothes are wet when others say they're not. My point was that the person doesn't perceive wetness, they perceive cold, texture, etc. They also perceive others' reactions. They also perceive that nothing happens when they try to wring out said clothes. Thus they can conclude that the clothes are not wet. Nor are they solely dry, as that doesn't explain their sensations. The person then can conclude that their clothes are dry, but they have a mental condition that makes their clothes seem wet. Their psychiatrist can confirm this.

How they "actually are" is irrelevant to the objective perspective.
I dont see how that can be; to percieve things objectively is to percieve things as they actually are. To not perceive things as they actually are is to not percieve things objectively.

Perceived reality is things perceived as being objective to us;
Percieved reality for human beings is subjective.

and, in the other context, in order to "be objective" we astract a viewpoint apart from us.
I dont believe a human being can have/form/take up a viewpoint apart from themself.

But you know what you perceive, and you can compare your various perceptions and see patterns in them.
That doesnt mean much when you consider that knowing what we percieve does not necessitate that any particular perception bears a particular relationship to objective reality.

When your perceptions change you can infer what might have changed in the surrounding objective reality.
Aha, and yet it may be that what you infer has changed has not.

As an example: on another thread awhile back I was arguing with someone about this, and they brought up the point that sometimes they feel like their clothes are wet when others say they're not. My point was that the person doesn't perceive wetness, they perceive cold, texture, etc. They also perceive others' reactions. They also perceive that nothing happens when they try to wring out said clothes. Thus they can conclude that the clothes are not wet.
All based on their subjectivity.

Nor are they solely dry, as that doesn't explain their sensations.
The person then can conclude that their clothes are dry, but they have a mental condition that makes their clothes seem wet. Their psychiatrist can confirm this.
No the person can form a subjective opinion about their mental condition and the psychiatrist can form a subjective opinion that agrees with the person's.

That doesnt mean much when you consider that knowing what we percieve does not necessitate that any particular perception bears a particular relationship to objective reality.

Aha, and yet it may be that what you infer has changed has not.

All based on their subjectivity.

No the person can form a subjective opinion about their mental condition and the psychiatrist can form a subjective opinion that agrees with the person's.

Look, while perception is the only way to observe reality (duh, unless you happen to be Rene Descartes), that doesn't mean reality is subjective. Subjectivity implies that reality is different for every person, but the very existence of science implies that reality is the same for different people. There is no reason to think that the universe isn't governed by one set of patterns, and every reason to think that it is. Perception is consistent and replicable.

Look, while perception is the only way to observe reality (duh, unless you happen to be Rene Descartes), that doesn't mean reality is subjective.
Of course it doesnt.

Subjectivity implies that reality is different for every person,
It implies that the perception of reality that any two perceivers have, is not necessarily the same.

but the very existence of science implies that reality is the same for different people.
No it doesnt.

There is no reason to think that the universe isn't governed by one set of patterns, and every reason to think that it is. Perception is consistent and replicable.
Well, if there is a reason, it's not one that I am aware of.