(11-10-2018, 05:30 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote:(11-10-2018, 10:20 AM)Snoopy Wrote: "In stories, newspapers, and the spoken word, people all over the world are trying to convince you to think as they do. They are bombarding you with facts and figures, opinions and projections. It is up to you to create order within this chaos and find the patterns that will help you to understand what is true, what could be true, and what is outright false. In order to do all this, you need to have a firm grip on what is objective and what is subjective.
Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures."
http://www.differencebetween.net/languag...ubjective/
Agreed.
So if I am going to convince you of moral objectivism, I'll have to stick to logic. I'll have to avoid appeals to emotion as well (because if I convince you that way, I have manipulated you, not reasoned with you). And last but not least: I'll have to be indifferent to whether you agree with me or not. I hold my position because I find it plausible, and I could care less who agrees with me.
There are GOOD arguments for moral subjectivism/nihilism that I find very appealing. The matter is far from settled. (I would be dishonest to say otherwise.)
Debate can be done for two purposes: to convince others to agree with you at any cost -OR- to clarify the issue by challenging assertions. I debate for the latter reason.
Opinions and vagueness can be misleading.
It seems to me that all of life is working together as a single unit.
So is participation assisting in the expansion and adaption of life objective morality?
