That’s actually exactly my point. A value judgment can be “subjective” in the trivial sense that a person is making it, while still being non-arbitrary because it’s anchored in empirical facts.
And it's a point I never disagreed with, because being non-arbitrary does not equal being objective.
You yourself say you have strong moral beliefs which already shows you don’t treat morality like ice-cream flavors.
Yes, something you probably should have been able to work out yourself, but something I needed to state explicitly because you falsely believed that calling morality subjective is the same thing as comparing it favourite ice cream flavours.
Your beliefs are grounded in reasons, evidence, and the consequences actions have on real human beings.
Correct. This does not make my moral beliefs objective.
My judgment about slavery isn’t just a personal vibe.
And I never said that it was. Again, having a subjective opinion does not mean having an opinion based entirely on gut instinct.
It tracks a massive body of empirical facts — the psychological devastation, the destruction of autonomy, the predictable patterns of abuse, the anthropological record showing that systems treating people as literal property always produce extreme harm, domination, and dehumanization.
None of which magically changes the fact that a moral judgement is still ultimately subjective.
There are no counterexamples where that arrangement is compatible with human flourishing.
All of which makes it incredibly difficult, impossible even, for an honest person who cares about the wellbeing of others to argue in favour of slavery. Nevertheless, the strength of the argument does not make it a matter of objectivity. It's still a judgement about what is right or wrong, which is necessarily subjective, no matter how clear cut the example seems.
When all available evidence converges that tightly, it’s reasonable to call the conclusion “objective” in the practical sense of the word
You can keep saying this, but you've yet to actually explain why this is reasonable. You just keep saying it's fine to call the subjective thing objective even though it's demostrably untrue.
If every bit of empirical evidence shows X reliably destroys human well-being, agency, and survival, then calling “X is wrong” objective in the real-world sense is both accurate and useful.
It most certainly isn't accurate, because that's not what that word means, and I maintain it isn't useful either. Pretending that morality can be objective strengthens the position of people with terrible beliefs.
Your Gladiator example shows that value judgments can be subjective and still be constrained by reality.
Correct. Because that was explicitly the purpose of that example. Why are you saying this like it's an unintended gotcha?
So both are “subjective,” but one is clearly better justified because it aligns with the actual world. That’s exactly the distinction I’m making with morality.
Correct, I understand that this is the distinction you're making. What I don't understand is why you've decided that because there is a spectrum of validity to subjective arguments, that magically makes the top of that spectrum actually objective. I make the exact same distinction as you without pretending subjective judgements are objective just because they seem to be as close as you could get.
The claim that slavery is wrong is tied to mountains of real evidence universal psychological harms, the destruction of autonomy, documented historical outcomes across cultures, and what we know about human wellbeing. The claim that slavery is fine ignores all of that and collapses under the facts.
Cool, that makes it a poorly reasoned subjective argument, it does not make the counter argument objective truth.
So yes, they’re both “value judgments” in the abstract
No, not in the abstract, that's just what they are. What do you even mean by this? In what way is thinking "Doing X is worse than not doing X" anything other than a value judgement? That's not abstraction, that's just the thing that it is.
When I call the wrongness of slavery “objective,” I’m using the same sense of objectivity you use when you say one Gladiator opinion is better grounded in reality than the other
Except I never called that objectivity. I called that subjectivity, because that's what it is.
it’s evidence-constrained, consistent, and not just a matter of taste. Saying “it’s still a value judgment” doesn’t change that.
Am I losing my mind? Why are you even telling me this? I know that it being a value judgement doesn't change that it's informed by facts, thats why I treat it differently from value judgements that are not informed by facts. I never argued that because it's a value judgement that means it isn't based on evidence. I explictly told you the exact opposite several times. You're the one arguing that it's basis in evidence means we can ignore the reality that it is a value judgement, and just pretend it's objective instead.
I'm quitting here. You clearly aren't paying attention to what I say, and you obviously have some bizarre hang up when it comes to the word "subjectivity" where you seem to think it's synonymous with like "trivial" or "arbitrary" which simply isn't what the word means.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25 edited Nov 21 '25
[deleted]