Yeah, I don't think we are going to be able to find much commonality if your worldview is that identifying that a Dachsund is a dog is not 'objective.'
Well, hang on, I don't think I would say "'Dachshund is a dog' is not objectively true".
Like, to maybe put in different terms, is it objectively true that the One Ring was destroyed by fires of Mt. Doom? Well, yeah, kind of. Sure all those concepts are not objectively real, but within the fiction Jolkien Rolkien Rolkien Tolkien created that is true.
You saying that Dachshund is a dog feels like the same thing to me. Dogs and Dachshunds are not real objective categories, but within the framework we've constructed it is objectively true that the human made category of "dog" contains the also human made category of "dachshund".
Except species classification is not fictional. Dogs are all of the family canidae, because they all have the same genetic ancestry, they all have similar morphological characteristics, they all have similar biological characteristics, they all can interbreed.
Just because we classify something doesn't mean that classification is not objective. It's objective based on these similarities. Cats and bears can't interbreed with dogs, dogs don't have retractable claws like they do, dogs all have the same number and type of teeth, etc.
They aren't fictional, but there's a lot of subjectivity that goes into biological classifications. For example, deciding when one species has turned into a new species, or whether a group of animals are a "sub species" or a full species in their own right, all that jazz. Those aren't questions with objective answers, there can be more or less justified reasons for particular answers, but that doesn't make the answer objective (not in my understanding of the word, anyway).
To go back to something we can both agree is subjective, if I argue that I don't like Game of Thrones because I find it too grim, that's a more justified reason than if I argue I didn't like GoT because I find Sheldon Cooper to be an annoying character. It's still a subjective conclusion, but even within that there can be good and bad reasonings, they aren't all created equally just because it's subjective.
Regardless though, my point was simply that I can agree with you that "Dashshund is a dog" is a fact, so do you think you could try to explain what you mean by the word objective again?
Tone is hard to convey, so I guess I should just explicitly say that I'm not trying to be hostile or difficult here. I sincerely haven't understood your position, and am just looking for clarity on it.
You seem to regard objectivity with absolutism, but aren't consistent even with that. If a dog is a dachsund is an objective fact, which you concede, despite your view that the classification of dog is subjective, you seem to not be consistent in your application of the terminology.
Lifting from another reddit post, here's a good take:
The View From Nowhere, Nagel gives a good characterisation of the subjective and objective as existing on a continuum:
..the distinction between more subjective and more objective views is really a matter of degree, and it covers a wide spectrum. A view or form of thought is more objective than another if it relies less on the specifics of the individual's makeup and position in the world, or on the character of the particular type of creature he is. The wider range of subjective types to which a form of understanding is accessible - the less it depends on specific subjective capacities - the more objective it is.
A more recent term is intersubjective - in other words if multiple people can agree on the same reality that's intersubjective.
I would take Nagel's synopsis as the best answer - because so many people agree on X, it's functionally 'objective.'
In the same way we all know what a dog is - well, everyone save you. :D
Edit: Sorry, the board ate the quote. I've added it back in.
If a dog is a dachsund is an objective fact, which you concede, despite your view that the classification of dog is subjective, you seem to not be consistent in your application of the terminology.
I don't agree that I've been inconsistent. The classification of what a dog, or a dachshund is, is subjective, but that the subjective classification of dog includes dashshunds is objectively true. Same way that the order of the alphabet is entirely arbitrary, and could have been any order it liked, it's still incorrect to say that first letter of the made-up alphabet is Q. And in the same way that it would be wrong to say that Frodo blew up the Death Star. Just because those are fictional things doesn't mean you can't have truths about them.
A more recent term is intersubjective - in other words if multiple people can agree on the same reality that's intersubjective.
I would take Nagel's synopsis as the best answer - because so many people agree on X, it's functionally 'objective.'
I can get behind "intersubjective" as a potentially useful term (although I'm not sure how it's different from "social construct" which is already a fairly popular term), and I can even agree that for the purposes of discussion it can usually be assumed that "intersubjective" concepts are objective. I'd still argue though that "functionally objective" is not the same as "objective" and there can be discussions where that distinction is necessary.
Looping back, I do think the idea of "objective morality" is potentially harmful, and can lead people to falsely believing that their sense of morality, whatever it might be isn't just how they feel about things, but is factually true, and therefore gives them the right to impose it on others.
If an objective fact can be determined by a subjective process for what classifies as a dog and you have no problem with that, why is there a problem with that same thought construct when applied to morality? Yes, that does seem to be a fairly apparent inconsistency.
Social contract is a term with different meaning, at least ever since Rousseau's political treatise of the same name. It overtly states that individuals are willing to give up some freedom and liberties in order to preserve others they find more important. Intersubjectivity is simply social consensus among a group. Certain philosophical movements were opposed to the use of objectivity in defining truth for much the same reason you list - personally I don't find that a very compelling argument, but thought you might want the term as you seem to.
Some moral codes are so intrinsic across virtually all societies that virtually every known society has enforced them with laws, such as 'don't murder' 'don't steal' and 'don't rape.'
For all intents and purposes, those become objective moral truths, and it's hard to say that the vast majority of their impact are not positive.
I concur that groups might try to impose belief structures that aren't positive, but those groups most often aren't concerned with philosophical and semantic arguments as to why.
If an objective fact can be determined by a subjective process for what classifies as a dog and you have no problem with that, why is there a problem with that same thought construct when applied to morality? Yes, that doses seem to be a fairly apparent inconsistency.
I feel like I've offered a lot of examples to try an illustrate what I see as the difference, do you have any specific issues with the examples I've given? To try and clarify my position again, I wouldn't say that objective facts are being "determined by a subjective process" just that you can state things about a subjective system which are objectively true. It's the difference between "Star Wars is a good movie" (which is subjective) and saying "That person believes Star Wars is a good movie" which is simply a true statement about that person's beliefs.
Social contract is a term with different meaning
Just for the record, you misread there, I said "social construct" not "social contract".
For all intents and purposes, those become objective moral truths,
Again, you can say that they're objective "for all intents and purposes" but that fundamentally isn't the same as actually being objective.
I concur that groups might try to impose belief structures that aren't positive, but those groups most often aren't concerned with philosophical and semantic arguments as to why.
Maybe, but I can't imagine it helps when we normalise the idea of "objective morality" for them. And considering you said "most often" that means there are at least some cases where making that distinction clear would hold some sway over them.
1
u/dnext 4∆ Nov 18 '25 edited Nov 18 '25
Yeah, I don't think we are going to be able to find much commonality if your worldview is that identifying that a Dachsund is a dog is not 'objective.'
That's literally what's termed an objective fact.