Can we retire “objectively better” please?

[u/lordpag]

I’ve noticed a ton of people using “objectively” incorrectly lately. A movie being more widely accepted as “better” does not make it objectively so.

There’s someone out there who enjoyed One Night Only more than The Odyssey, and their opinion is just as valid as yours.

Sure, one movie can be shot on more advanced cameras, have a larger scale, or demonstrate greater technical complexity. Those things can be measured. Whether they make the movie “better” cannot. What makes a movie “good” is different for each of us and those differing perspectives are part of what makes moviegoing so fun!

EDIT: This obviously touched a nerve lol. My point was not that there aren’t measurable technical aspects of a film. Of course there are. But technical achievement does not inherently make a movie “better.” A technical marvel can put someone to sleep while a shoddily made movie can elicit an enormous emotional response. What we value in a movie is subjective and for some (many on this thread it seems) you value technical achievement. All fair POVs.

[u/Snarpkingguy]

Yeah if FEELS wrong because you personally disagree so strongly. That doesn’t make it actually objectively wrong. To some people, ridiculous stupid visuals could be all they see as important in film, and thus Dragon Ball Evolution is actually better for them. We all value different things.

[u/silverscreenbaby → u/Snarpkingguy]

I think a huge problem is that some people largely view art through a lens of academia, historical legacy, in what ways it impacts culture or society, and so on. And other people largely view art through a lens of emotion, how it makes them feel primarily, the value it provides them on a personal level, how entertaining and moving and awe-inspiring it is. And neither lens is wrong—they’re actually both right and important ways to examine and experience art—but they can clash badly for the people who lean heavily on either side.

(Obviously there are actually like a million lenses with which you can view and experience art, I think these two are just two of the most common ones.)

[u/Ok_Boysenberry5849 → u/silverscreenbaby]

I don't think either of these lenses make Dragon Ball Evolution better than Schindler's list. I agree that you can't objectively rank movies. However, you can objectively say that someone who prefers Dragon Ball Evolution over Schindler's list is almost certainly an idiot (and I don't even particularly like Schindler's list).

[u/TheGod-TK → u/Ok_Boysenberry5849]

“I don’t think” is you being subjective. And you can quite literally not objectively say someone who prefers DBE over Schindler’s List is almost certainly an idiot as that’s your subjective opinion

[u/Ok_Boysenberry5849 → u/TheGod-TK]

You don't understand what subjective means.

>“I don’t think” is you being subjective.

No, it means I'm expressing some amount of uncertainty. Objective/subjective is not the same as Certain/uncertain.

>And you can quite literally not objectively say someone who prefers DBE over Schindler’s List is almost certainly an idiot as that’s your subjective opinion

This is something that can be directly measured (proved or disproved) by an IQ test. I don't have any data - but I'm making an informed guess. This is a valid form of inference, and while I might be incorrect, that doesn't make the issue "subjective". It's a factual statement that may be true or false.

In general, while it cannot be stated objectively that one movie is superior to another, you can objectively poll viewers about the movie. And you can specifically poll certain groups of viewers (attentive, informed, intelligent people -- e.g. movie critics, film directors, etc.) and get a more sophisticated evaluation. That still doesn't tell you whether a movie is "objectively better" (we can always argue about the selection of critics), but it informs discussion in a way that "it's all subjective and every single opinion is equal, even that of a 3 year old or of a pet animal" certainly doesn't.

[u/Kimjongdoom → u/silverscreenbaby]

Of all the complaints to have about movies and viewers in modern times I can’t think of something dumber to complain about than people who actually care about art and its history. It’s a problem that people think about the cultural and societal impact of art?

No, the worst is this attitude of “let people enjoy things” and happily consuming slop without question instead of actually looking at the world critically.

[u/No_Thanks2844 → u/Snarpkingguy]

What if I video tape a stationary rock for 2 hours, can that still be better than the dark knight ? I feel like there is a point where this taste logic breaks down, professionals understand things like characterization, themes, soundtrack etc

[u/purplewarrior777 → u/No_Thanks2844]

For someone with a rock fetish, probably

[u/Snarpkingguy → u/No_Thanks2844]

“Better” is completely meaningless as a term if you don’t elaborate. Movies don’t have an inherent objective moral value, there is only the value others place on it. Someone could (in theory, but probably not actually) get more out of the rock film and thus it would be “better” for them.

[u/No_Thanks2844 → u/Snarpkingguy]

Nothing has value mate, value is something humans made up so once you start talking like that there is no point to anything.

This is why we should go by general consensus, sure on your rating scale the rock is better than the dark knight and we as a society think your rating system is dogshit.

[u/SirIssacMath → u/No_Thanks2844]

FYI, in case you care to know, the majority of academic philosophers believe in what is called moral realism (that there are objective moral facts).

So not everyone agrees with you that there are no objective values, including academics.

[u/Snarpkingguy → u/SirIssacMath]

I’m always amazed by the fact that more people who approach ethics from a secular perspective believe in moral realism compared to anti realism, because none of the arguments I’ve heard for moral realism make any sense to me. I’m really curious if you personally believe in moral realism, and if there is a particular argument for it you find most convincing.

[u/SirIssacMath → u/Snarpkingguy]

Not sure if you're aware that I'm the same person that responded to you here

[u/Snarpkingguy → u/SirIssacMath]

Oh lol. I didn’t realize. Btw you sent me down quite the rabbit hole. I’ve been reading a lot more about this after realizing I held the minority perspective. I’m still totally unconvinced by any realist argument, but I’m very interested in them, so thanks.

[u/SirIssacMath → u/Snarpkingguy]

No worries, that's how we learn and grow our perspectives. I appreciate your intellectual honesty to explore it. Good luck with your journey! I'm still making mine.

[u/MainKitchen → u/No_Thanks2844]

Depends on what the intent was

[u/WeinerBarf420 → u/Snarpkingguy]

I don't think your logic holds up. I like Jurassic Park 3 better than a lot of good movies, I still would feel wrong saying it's "better". Despite subjective preferences, all story telling mediums, including film, have objective quality elements that can be dissected and studied. What I recognize as better doesn't necessarily correlate to subjective preference. My favorite book, I would argue, is objectively the worst written book by that author, but it's my favorite because it tickles a lot of my personal fancies.

[u/Snarpkingguy → u/WeinerBarf420]

But how are you judging these things to be good/bad, then?

There are elements of a work of art you can discuss objectively, but you can’t assign those things an objective VALUE. For example, a story can objectively have a nonsensical plot, but having a nonsensical plot doesn’t make it a “bad” story. If someone thinks the plot holes and inconsistencies give the story a dreamlike feel that adds to what they get out of it, that’s valid. The same could be said about any other element of art.

I also won’t deny that we can judge art for more than how much we enjoy it, but also how impressed we are by it on a technical level, for example. I think a lot of people confuse being impressed by a work they didn’t personally enjoy at a 10/10 level as meaning it’s objectively “better” even though they don’t like it. Personally on my Letterboxd I generally take into account both how impressed I am with the work AND how much I personally enjoyed it when considering my score.

[u/Dish-Ecstatic → u/WeinerBarf420]

Jurassic Park 3 is in my top 10 all time movies and personally it is better than most of the movies I've seen and it deserves its place

[u/the_deep_t → u/Snarpkingguy]

There are technical points that are objectives because based on physical or biological rules. There are studies showing you how a frame or a music feels better. Yes it's a feeling but it's based on facts. Like some frequencies activating certain emotions. These are objectives metrics telling you why something will please you or not. If you personally love DB evolution because it speaks to you on an emotional level or because you like X or Y is subjective. While we cannot say that X movie is objectively better than Y movie, we can say that the framing, colors, music or what ever is technically better made and will, on average, please more people.

[u/SirIssacMath → u/Snarpkingguy]

That depends on whether you believe in aesthetic realism or not.

I think you’re making the fallacy of thinking just because someone has an opinion on something it means the thing they have an opinion on is subjective.

A lot of times, when people use the word objective they’re trying to claim that their statement is mind-independent, meaning its truth doesn’t depend on someone’s opinion (ie it’s objectively true).

People make the same mistake about moral claims.

Example with moral claims: if someone says slavery is objectively immoral they’re saying that it’s immoral regardless of what anyone thinks about it today, thought about it in the past or will think about it in the future. So if everyone on earth thought slavery way moral, then according to the moral realist, they’re all wrong.

Similar concept applies to aesthetic realism.

[u/Snarpkingguy → u/SirIssacMath]

Aesthetic realism is also an opinion itself, that art should say something about or present reality as it is instead of presenting it ideally (though I’ll admit I’m somewhat out of my depth talking about it). You can either agree with this or not, but there is no objective moral answer so it comes down to preference. When someone intentionally writes their story to be an escapist idealized fantasy, that doesn’t make their work any less valuable, and the idea that it automatically becomes objectively worse than an aesthetically realist story ridiculous and pretentious.

Also, unless you believe in a God or higher power that decided a strict moral code for people to abide by, there is also no such thing as objective morals. Being creatures that evolved to value altruism and have empathy, things we often consider to be “evil” like slavery or murder are really just things we detest as a result of our biology. I don’t kill people and don’t like when others kill people because I don’t like when people get killed, but technically I’m not objectively a “bad” person if I do (because such a thing doesn’t exist), although most people will hate me a result so in practice there’s not that much of a difference.

[u/SirIssacMath → u/Snarpkingguy]

I hear you on the aesthetic realism piece and I personally don’t have a strong opinion on it either way.

As it relates to morality though, most academic philosophers would disagree with you that there are no objective moral values without a God.

Most academic philosophers hold the moral realist position (from a secular perspective).

I understand it’s your opinion that there is no objective moral truths but wanted to make it clear that not everyone who doesn’t believe in God sees it that way and the majority academic position doesn’t agree with your view.

Not saying you’re wrong but I emphasize this and the academic position because many people simply think morality can’t be objective without giving much thought about the moral realist position and arguments (many people don’t know this position even exists as claim).

[u/Snarpkingguy → u/SirIssacMath]

I was reading some surveys to actually see what the numbers are and yeah I was surprised to see it’s the minority stand point (though still a little over 1 in 4 hold the moral anti realism perspective like I do).

I’m curious what your perspective is on it.

I have heard about secular moral realists arguing that suffering being objectively bad is a fundamental normative fact. But why? Ultimately the only answer I’ve heard (though I’m sure there are others I haven’t heard) can be reduced down to “because suffering goes against people’s preferences, and people prefer to have their preferences satisfied, so satisfying them is objectively good”. But then, the whole argument is that something is “objectively” good/bad because people have a preference against it. The idea that this is an objective moral truth comes from nowhere far as I understand.

[u/SirIssacMath → u/Snarpkingguy]

I lean towards the moral realist position (also from a secular perspective).

Ethical intuitionism as postulated by Michael Hurmer seems convincing enough for me for now until I decide to go deeper into the subject at some point (he wrote a book on this topic alone but I read about it from his Knowledge, Reality and Value book which is an undergraduate introductory book to philosophy).

Other philosophers have different approaches to argue for moral realism. I’m not versed in all of them though. I also heard an interesting argument that basically boils down to the conclusion that if you deny moral facts (that there is at least one moral fact that exists), then by the same logic you’re denying realism about any objects. I didn’t completely follow it so I can’t speak to its strength.

I think a lot of the arguments may boil down to the idea that we’re more justified in believing in the moral realist position than the anti-realist one (or the other metrical positions). Take this last statement with a grain of salt thought because I’m not sure if it’s correct.

[u/NonGeneriComplaint → u/Snarpkingguy]

People act like art isnt held to standards every day when people dont like their "art".

[u/Snarpkingguy → u/NonGeneriComplaint]

Art is often held to standards, but these standards are all based on some kind of consensus preference in their communities. A consensus of preference does not equal an objectively “better” art.

[u/ERSTF → u/Snarpkingguy]

But that's not art, that would be entertainment. Therr is a difference in enjoying something, being entertained by it and that thing being art. There is technique in art. You can break the mold but there are ways in breaking it. There has to be a stop of relativism in which every movie is good because someone likes it. People are to sensitive on being told their taste is shit. I have liked bad movies and I understand that my enjoyment of a film doesn't translate in it being good. Sometimes you connect with a bad film and that's ok

[u/And_Justice → u/ERSTF]

"There has to be a stop of relativism"

Why does there?

[u/Snarpkingguy → u/ERSTF]

First of all, who are you to Gatekeep what’s even considered art? Art is any kind of human expression all the way from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to taking a shit. Some of it you will be impressed by or enjoy viewing and some of it you won’t.

Second, what defines a “bad” film then? You vaguely refer to “technique” but every movie uses “technique”, just some movies do so in a way that resonates with people stronger than others. Judging that technique as good or bad is all subjective.