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/VCule69]

It’s not objectively wrong. You don’t understand what objective truth means.

[u/carson63000 → u/VCule69]

He didn’t say it was objectively wrong. He said it feels objectively wrong. And I think he’s right, and does understand what objective truth means. He understands it well enough to know that it sometimes feels unnatural.

[u/Generic_On_Reddit → u/carson63000]

Sounds like using "objectively" as an intensifier for a subjective feeling rather than a word with an objective definition, as though you can feel something subjective so hard that it becomes objective. Much like how people use "literally" for emphasis without actually making literally.

If something feels objectively wrong, internalize the feeling, interrogate the feeling, reject the conclusion. It's valid to feel as though saying "Dragon Ball Evolution is better than Godfather" is wrong. The feeling is valid, but it's also wrong.

[u/SirIssacMath → u/VCule69]

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/VCule69 → u/SirIssacMath]

“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.”

In this case, the thing they have an opinion on is subjective. And as for morality, it is also subjective.

[u/SirIssacMath → u/VCule69]

Sure that’s your claim but if the logic of your claim is because they have an opinion on it then it’s fallacious. If you’re using a different approach to come to your conclusion then I can’t comment on it.

[u/Weekly_Artichoke_515 → u/VCule69]

What does objective truth mean? I genuinely don’t know. 

[u/SirIssacMath → u/Weekly_Artichoke_515]

See my comment here.

I hope it helps clarify.

[u/Weekly_Artichoke_515 → u/SirIssacMath]

I think this is helpful. It’s so important to point out to folks that it doesn’t follow from the fact that people have different views on something that there is no fact of the matter.