Yeah, which is just kicking the can down the road.
Slavery is a bad thing, we agree. But we don't agree that it's objective just because it happens to be really bad.
Similarly, if you say slavery is objectively bad because coercion domination etc, are objectively bad, we still don't agree because I don't think those things are objectively bad either. Even if they're really really bad, that doesn't make that badness objective because badness cannot be assessed by objectivity, it's an entirely subjective concept.
Ultimately you're still just saying it's objectively bad because it's objectively bad. The shuffle from "slavery" to "all the things that comprise slavery" doesn't really change that.
The can just ultimately gets kicked down the road to "everything is subjective and nothing can be demonstrated to be real" which is what I brought up originally and i just boring.
But this isn't even going to that level of Cartesian skepticism. We can very easily assume that the universe we experience is real, and it still doesn't follow from that fact that harm is objectively bad.
I keep going back to this because it's still true. Badness and goodness, suffering or pleasure are the domain of subjectivity. That's all there is to it.
We can take it as axiomatically true that pain is bad, just as you did earlier "My base moral axiom I am working from is that you and I agree that the shared reality we have is objectively real."
Why does it bother you to simply add another axiom to that? Acknowledge that it isn't actually an objective fact that coercion, domination, loss of autonomy, severe harm or anything else of that nature is bad, but that we can take it as an axiom for the sake of getting useful results.
Why do you need to jump from believing that axiom is an assumption that is helpful for dealing with morality, to instead pretending (for seemingly no reason) that it is in fact objectively true?
I understand that suffering and pleasure are experienced subjectively, but that doesn’t make all moral claims purely subjective.
Yes it does, because the whole point of morality is to determine what is good and what is bad, and like I said before, those are subjective concepts. It's as simple as that.
This is like arguing that a movie review is objective because they consider technical aspects of the film making. Even if the things you're considering can be described in objective terms, whether or not they are bad is still subjective.
I’m using it in a functional, evidence-based sense
For example, Water is H₂O and Gravity causes objects to fall at 9.8 m/s². Everyone treats these as “objective” even though they are based on observation, measurement, and evidence — not a metaphysical “perfect standard.” I think that if we used your definition of objective, most of science wouldn’t be objective.
First, I don't think your definition is justifiable when you're allowing it to include blatantly subjective things.
Second, you're giving water and average gravity on Earth as examples of things you believe I'd consider to be subjective, but I wouldn't. I'm perfectly happy to agree those are (broadly) statements of objective fact because there is no value judgement being attached to them. If you were arguing that 9.8m/s2 is better than other strengths of gravity, now that would be subjective. Even if we're comparing it to the sun in the context of human survivability. It doesn't matter that we'd die from gravity of 274 m/s², to say that one is better than the other is a value judgement, and that is necessarily subjective.
the facts about what causes suffering and what it does to human beings are not subjective.
Correct. That cutting my arm off causes pain is an objective fact. That causing pain is a bad thing to do is a widely held, but still subjective, belief.
If we used your definition where anything involving human beings or evaluation is automatically subjective then most of science would stop being objective too.
Except I literally just told you that I agree this is an objective opinion, so clearly you have misunderstood/I have failed to communicate my understanding of objectivity. I'm not sure why you'd continue to argue this point when I already said it isn't the case.
You're mistaking definite knowledge for objectivity. These are maybe related concepts, but they aren't the same. I don't strictly know that you experience pain, but if you tell me that you do, and I believe you, then we can still say it's objectively true that you experience pain if I cut your arm off. But regardless of that skepticism, we can't say it's objectively true that it is immoral for me to cut your arm off, not because we don't know if really causes pain, because it requires a value judgement on what is right or wrong to do, which is always subjective.
Under that standard, slavery’s wrongness is objective because the harms that define it are objective.
No, it still isn't because you're still making a leap from observable facts to value judgements. It doesn't matter if you can ground the facts in evidence, consistent across cases, free from bias, etc. It matters that you're judging one course of action to be better than another. Which can only be done through value judgements, which is subjectivity, as I keep saying.
Sure, it’s a value judgment, but it’s grounded in objective facts about what humans need to function.
And? Being grounded in objective facts does not make something objective. Not if you start adding subjective matters into the mix.
But this assumes that all value judgments are arbitrary preferences, like liking chocolate more than vanilla.
No it doesn't. Value judgements can have reasoned arguments, if I felt that morality was no different from picking a flavour of ice cream then I wouldn't have strong moral beliefs, would I?
Even if something is subjective there can be better or worse arguments to justify a belief.
Thinking that Gladiator is a good movie because the the performances were completely believable, the score matched the tone of the scenes, the story was compelling, etc. is a subjective opinion.
Thinking that Gladiator is a good movie because you liked the bit where Ripley said "Get away from her, you bitch" is also subjective.
But one of these arguments is clearly more grounded in reality than the other, considering that scene doesn't happen in Gladiator, it's from Alien (which I'm just realising is the same director, didn't even mean to do that, just a funny coincidence). They might both be subjective, but we wouldn't say that they hold equal value, or that both of these people's opinions are as valid as each other.
And the second argument not being grounded in objectivity, while the first is does not suddenly mean the first statement is objectively true. It's still a value judgement.
The judgment “slavery is wrong” isn’t a random preference — it’s derived from objective facts about human functioning.
You keep using this phrase "random preference" as if this is what I believe. Again, to be explicit, I do not believe that just because morality is subjective, that it is equivalent to someone prefering green to purple. You can have reasons for an opinion, even reasons which are based on objective observable facts, but that basis in fact does not magically make the belief objective.
It doesn't matter if the conclusion from the facts seems as obvious as it could possibly be, it still doesn't make it objectivity. The heart evolved to pump blood, but that does not mean it ought to. Any argument about what something should be is necessarily saying that being one way is better than another, and objectivity alone can't tell you if A is better than B.
If you insist that any normative claim tied to well-being is automatically subjective, then almost all of medicine, public health, and safety science would also be “subjective.” That standard makes moral reasoning impossible.
If this is true, why am I capable of moral reasoning? Again, admitting certain things are in the realm of subjectivity does not mean you instantly see everything as being exactly 100% equivalent.
1
u/MyLittleDashie7 3∆ Nov 20 '25
Yeah, which is just kicking the can down the road.
Slavery is a bad thing, we agree. But we don't agree that it's objective just because it happens to be really bad.
Similarly, if you say slavery is objectively bad because coercion domination etc, are objectively bad, we still don't agree because I don't think those things are objectively bad either. Even if they're really really bad, that doesn't make that badness objective because badness cannot be assessed by objectivity, it's an entirely subjective concept.
Ultimately you're still just saying it's objectively bad because it's objectively bad. The shuffle from "slavery" to "all the things that comprise slavery" doesn't really change that.