Originally Posted by
cowmeat
"There are no circumstances in the universe in which that sort of behaviour would ever be considered acceptable. "
Considered by who? Again there is someone who has to consider it, thus it is subjective.
Consideration of a fact still happens when dealing with concretes though. The difference is that we can easily come across a definitive, objective answer for concrete things because science works on the natural world. So consideration of the fact isn't relevant here, what's relevant is that we can't use the scientific method in full in the realm of conceptualisations, since conceptualisations don't exist in the natural world.
I still stand by my point that we can investigate the conceptual world and make judgements using what tools we can, logic and reason. It may not be 'objectivity' in the most technical sense, but I don't think that's really important, since it lets us say definitive things like 'torturing and raping a child is immoral' and 'fat people with fucked teeth and open bleeding sores all over their body aren't beautiful'. Things that any sane and reasonable person would agree with. Is it technically objective, nah. Does it matter at all that it's not, nah. I'd argue the distinction is mostly unimportant for any context that isn't within a university philosophy class.
Originally Posted by Cowmeat
If you want to talk about "watered down" objectivity, sure there is objectivity in beauty and morality. But that's not very interesting.
Lol, it's way more interesting and engaging than discussing philosophy class objectivity.
Last edited by Ele; Mar 31, 2017 at 06:12 PM.