Opinions

[SpaceYeti]

Does it bother anyone else when someone suggests that something they think cannot be wrong, because it's an opinion? I'm commonly in debates in online forums, and people seem to get upset and offended when I make the claim that an opinion they posit is false. I don't know how it's impossible to have an opinion which is false, especially when it can be demonstrated to be so, and I'm doubly baffled how it's offensive to make the claim. Has anyone else been subject to such claims, and was your reaction to it the same as mine? Any insights?

 

[snafupants]

that binary of true/false is a tad flat, and a little intj. it doesnt bother me for someone to say something completely erroneous (e.g., because of faulty surmises), but it does bother me not to know where theyre getting their information or to know its complete malarkey with no source material. like if someone religious or someone into psychedelics says you wouldnt understand, i think thats unacceptably exclusionary, as its inherently outside most peoples worldview and lexicon and a crappy foundation for a conversation.

when someone attempts to pawn off their glorified intuition as fact, thats very annoying. but if i grill you and you give me three or four valid sources and just made a flimsy inference, then thats more forgivable because its obvious youre trying at least. some people just want to make reality more simple, more manageable by putting all of their chips on their own conclusions. everyone does this to some degree, people (myself included) need friends and family to call them on their bs.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Maybe it's a tad flat, but all things are either true or false. Most things, of course, are a combination of many smaller things, those smaller things being either true or false, but when it boils right down to it, any single claim is either true or it is false. The problem is determining which it is.

But my annoyance is more about people assuming that something labeled an "opinion" cannot be wrong, as though calling it an "opinion" somehow saves it from getting criticized. I can understand if what they're positing is a simple matter of taste, as that's actually subjective and so cannot be wrong (though I suppose you could still lie about it, but that doesn't make it false, it just makes what you're saying false). However, matters of objective reality are either true or false. Or, more accurately, items of objective reality are always true, but figuring out what's real is sometimes difficult.

 

[snafupants]

its been proven there is no objective reality, but because people have similar sensing apparati and experience basically the same, slow reality, there appears to be an objective reality. for example, when dealing with speeds approaching 186,000 miles per second, two perceptions can differ dramatically and both perceptions are inherently true in the universe and for the respective perceiving entities. that is why true/false makes no sense - because every perception is true and two perceptions can vary substantially. even to say a donut has red sprinkles is debatable as the cells in our retina perceive the color red in accordance with the electromagnetic signature; essentially, that red might be blue to some other perceiver or in a different universe, or both. that is why no one can really know anything objectively.

 

[Farion]

its been proven there is no objective reality

I have no idea whether that's true or not, but it made me laugh.

Back to the subject though, that is one of the things that most annoys me is when someone says something, you say you think they're wrong (that took me two tries not to write 'their'), and they cut you off or ignore you and get really angry that you questioned them because they "have a right to their own opinion [and you have no right to question it]."

It's fine when they listen to you and only say the first part of that, but when they ignore your opinion and imply the part in the brackets, I get really annoyed.

 

[₲uardian]

I come to a conclusion that people I don't like, are people who aren't included in my life. They can be "right" until the end of days for all I care.

 

[Words]

My perspective is that while I can agree to this sort of relativity being acted as a part of reasoning, the true problem is when intention becomes misplaced and inconsistent, which leads to the person being false:Moving the goalpost. Though to be fair, I myself am inclined[most often, intuitively] to make the same error of replacing the direction of my intention. That when I once searched for truth, I start looking for false victory instead. This infuriating pretense could be derived from how I tend to subconsciously personalize myself with my own idea in that if I am wrong, my identity is wrong. A solution would have to be awareness and consciousness of the habits.

 

[SpaceYeti]

its been proven there is no objective reality, but because people have similar sensing apparati and experience basically the same, slow reality, there appears to be an objective reality. for example, when dealing with speeds approaching 186,000 miles per second, two perceptions can differ dramatically and both perceptions are inherently true in the universe and for the respective perceiving entities. that is why true/false makes no sense - because every perception is true and two perceptions can vary substantially. even to say a donut has red sprinkles is debatable as the cells in our retina perceive the color red in accordance with the electromagnetic signature; essentially, that red might be blue to some other perceiver or in a different universe, or both. that is why no one can really know anything objectively.

... You're joking, right?

 

[typus]

... You're joking, right?

I'm guessing he talks about special relativity and frames of reference, and I guess he is kind of right in this sense? Although I have NO idea how one would be able to objectively prove that there is no objective reality.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I'm guessing he talks about special relativity and frames of reference, and I guess he is kind of right in this sense? Although I have NO idea how one would be able to objectively prove that there is no objective reality.

Exactly. If there's no objective reality, then nothing could be proven or disproved,ever. Sure, it sounds like he's talking about general relativity, but that theory never says there's no objective reality. Indeed, it describes objective reality, doing exactly the opposite of what he claims, which is why I'm not sure if he's joking or not. I mean... nobody could seriously reference Relativity and use it as a basis for the claim there's no such thing as objective reality. It's ludicrous, but I figured I'd ask if it were a joke before just assuming it was. If he's not joking... geeze, I don't know if I know the theory well enough to explain it to him. We may need a physicist.

 

[AlisaD]

Generally, I have no problem with people clinging on to their opinions, even getting really bitchy about it. I find it amusing.
But if I'm feeling bored, it's just such fun to say this:

Spoiler

 

[SpaceYeti]

It's not even about them clinging to their opinions, it's them being under the impressions that anything labeled an "opinion" innately cannot be wrong! It's baffling.

 

[₲uardian]

Spoiler

The idea in this picture was poorly designed.

 

[SpaceYeti]

The idea in this picture was poorly designed.

So was your mom.

Oh, snap!

 

[₲uardian]

So was your mom.

Oh, snap!

:O

 

[Fukyo]

So was ur blk mom.

:O

 

[SpaceYeti]

Her bulk mom?

 

[Words]

^ Notice the change in font color. I still don't get it though.

 

[SpaceYeti]

... Ninja bulk?

 

[Fukyo]

Oh, just checking something....resume with your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[SpaceYeti]

What did you check? How dead sexy I am? I don't blame you.

 

[Lobstrich]

It's not even about them clinging to their opinions, it's them being under the impressions that anything labeled an "opinion" innately cannot be wrong! It's baffling.

Oh god! YES!..

I had this debate with a classmate some years ago.

He said that you we're a accomplice in the killing of animals if you bought meat. Which is just straight out wrong. Our law says that you are accomplice if you are actually participating or if you're willingly standing, observing and not preventing a crime.

Which is not the case when you buy meat.
On the other hand you're not exactly trying to stop the killing of animals either. But you're NOT a accomplice. And when I gave him all this I just gave to you, he went "Well, that's your opinion"

And yes. It is my opinion. But it's also a fact.

(Off-Topic. How would you say this?.. A judicial fact? "It is also a judicial fact?" Is there some kind of other word for it? Sorry for the English fail, haha.

 

[Lobstrich]

It's not even about them clinging to their opinions, it's them being under the impressions that anything labeled an "opinion" innately cannot be wrong! It's baffling.

Oh god! YES!..

I had this debate with a classmate some years ago.

He said that you we're a accomplice in the killing of animals if you bought meat. Which is just straight out wrong. Our law says that you are accomplice if you are actually participating or if you're willingly standing, observing and not preventing a crime.

Which is not the case when you buy meat.
On the other hand you're not exactly trying to stop the killing of animals either. But you're NOT a accomplice. And when I gave him all this I just gave to you, he went "Well, that's your opinion"

And yes. It is my opinion. But it's also a fact.

(Off-Topic. How would you say this?.. A judicial fact? "It is also a judicial fact?" Is there some kind of other word for it? Sorry for the English fail, haha)

 

[SpaceYeti]

I would use "legality" or "according to the law", or whatever seemed accurate at the time.

But no, we may be guilty of some separate immoral action for buying meat, and he can make that argument if he wants, but we had nothing to do with the actual killing. Also, yeah, he basically came back with a non-come back. "Yeah, but you think what you just said!"

 

[Fallenman]

I'm actually a little curious what you define as an opinion. Could you give some examples? Opinions can be subjective, like me saying I like ice cream. Then there are a little more tricky circumstances like thinking abortion is wrong. I feel like thats an opinion, but it can still be evaluated, by pin pointing exactly what you mean by wrong in this instance.

But in general.. I don't give a damn what people think so long as their opinion doesn't interest me in some way shape or form. So if someone tells me they believe in jesus christ their savior and thats their opinion and they aren't to be challenged for it, then I will say well good for you and go about my business.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Essentially, a belief. Something someone thinks is true. And didn't I already say it's one thing when it's a subjective taste and a different matter entirely when it's an opinion about objective reality?

 

[AnExperimentalTom]

I suppose opinions come about from the fact that we all perceive the world and the facts we're presented differently; most likely based on our past experiences and our personalities. We are all perceive truth differently depending on our points of view.

For the most part I couldn't care less if someone's opinion is wrong, so as they realise its wrong and why its wrong and change their opinion based on it. If they adamantly refuse to correct their opinions if they have been shown its wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I will loose any and all respect for them as an intelligent human being.

And on the flip side of the coin, I hope that people will point out any fallacies in my opinions.

 

[SpaceYeti]

But that's just it, they cannot realize their opinion's wrong because they work on the axiom that anything labeled "opinion" cannot be wrong... which is contradictory, since I then obviously have the opinion that opinions can be wrong. It's strange how some people can just ignore contradictions in their own thoughts.

 

[Irishpenguin]

Okay, this thread has been bothering me for awhile now, and I am extremely surprised that nobody has said what I am about to say. I really hope I'm not the dumb one here, but here it goes. (and sorry for the ridiculously long post )

Okay, what I think this thread first needs is just a straight definition of what the word opinion means, lets just go with dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

and here's one for the word "fact" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

Okay there, that is what an opinion is [we can all agree on that, right? because if the we are assuming that the actual definition of "Opinion" is subjective, well that would kind of just be a paradox, (I.E. "My opinion of the definition of opinion is blah blah blah...") see what I mean?]

Now lets move forward here. What I basically am getting at is that there are two things in this world, opinions and facts, and anything that is a fact (i.e. can be proven by irrefutable evidence) can in no way shape or form ALSO BE AN OPINION. and anything that is an opinion (I.E. personal beliefs, preferences or ideals) is in no way shape or form ALSO BE A FACT

and yes Yeti, I realize that you said this

I can understand if what they're positing is a simple matter of taste, as that's actually subjective and so cannot be wrong

And what I am saying is that EVERY OPINION IS A MATTER OF TASTE BY DEFINITION...I mean seriosly...WTF guys!?...and I'm not trying to be a dick here by the way, even if that is how I may be coming off right now.

And me saying this (not the dick part, the "opinion is a matter of taste" part) is pretty much the basis of everything else that I will say in this post, everything else is just me reinforcing this concept, just in case you didn't want to read an entire post that is full of redundancies, I would however read the last paragraph though (and please, if you think I am just ridiculously wrong about this whole thing, then call me out on it, because I am deeply confused by how nobody else is thinking this right now )

And now I'll discuss Lobstrich's experience

Oh god! YES!..

I had this debate with a classmate some years ago.

He said that you we're a accomplice in the killing of animals if you bought meat. Which is just straight out wrong. Our law says that you are accomplice if you are actually participating or if you're willingly standing, observing and not preventing a crime.

Which is not the case when you buy meat.
On the other hand you're not exactly trying to stop the killing of animals either. But you're NOT a accomplice. And when I gave him all this I just gave to you, he went "Well, that's your opinion"

And yes. It is my opinion. But it's also a fact.

Umm...no, that is not your opinion, that is a fact, just a fact.(and yes, I realize I might have sounded kind of like a douche-bag since I just told you what you opinion is and what it is not, but I seriously have no other way to say it) I mean what you basically did was address the fact (hehe) that he used the word "Accomplice" and you called him out on it. And you happened to be right in this case. Since he used the word "Accomplice" which was a word invented by and strictly defined by the Judicial system, he was completely false in his statement, and this is because that by definition, people that buy and eat meat do not fall under the requirements of being an "Accomplice" by law, and that is a fact.

In short (okay, this isn't really "short" but whatever ). What the stupid guy should have said was

"People that eat meat are just as guilty as the people that kill the animal"

and that would be his indeed be his opinion (which you could not prove right or wrong...but instead , by using the word "Accomplice" he was instead saying this...

"The law's opinion is that people that buy and eat meat are just as guilty as the people that killed the animal"

and that is false, because that is not what the law's opinion states, and the law is pretty blunt about telling you what their opinion is (ya'know, by writing it down in ink. And this would be the evidence that you could (and did) point to in order prove what the laws opinion on the subject is)


and now just for even more redundancy

I'm commonly in debates in online forums, and people seem to get upset and offended when I make the claim that an opinion they posit is false. I don't know how it's impossible to have an opinion which is false, especially when it can be demonstrated to be so

If you can literally prove something false by pointing to concrete evidence, then it isn't an opinion, it is a fact.

Opinions or never true or false, they cannot be defined by these words, as they are completely subjective, that is the point of the word "Opinion"

And yes I realize that people will continue to use the word "Opinion" to state that what they think is not false even though you have evidence that says otherwise, but these people are just being retarded and are using the word "Opinion" completely wrong by it's definition. but hey, what can I say? People are fukkin' stewpid. (perhaps myself included )

 

[SpaceYeti]

You must have misread the definition of "opinion". The very definition you linked to. Here;

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second Medical opinion.

4. Law . the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.

5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

I included every last definition from the first source. Let's check this;
1) Do you have a single belief that's absolutely certain? Well, I hope you have one, but what about all the tohers? Okay, well, math, but all the ones about reality? If it's not "I exist" or math, you cannot be certain of it. Perhaps you could fool yourself into being certain, but then you're not certain on rational grounds (though you can have a rational belief in it. I'm pretty sure this computer I'm typing on is real, but I could be getting fooled somehow). If an opinion is a belief that you're not certain of, then most of your beliefs, all except "I exist" and math, are opinions.

2) This is the subjective sort of opinion.

3) This one and down are mostly irrelevant, granting context, though we could still apply them if we wanted to. After all, an expert's opinion would be primarily based on experience and fact, most likely, and so are both "knowledge" (fact) and "opinion".

By the very definition you post, "knowledge" and "opinion" overlap. You jumped in here under the assumption that an opinion was necessarily subjective and not a fact in an objective manner (though it's an objective fact that I like pizza, the actual liking of pizza is subjective).

However, even if we assumed you were correct, then we still have a problem (people calling beliefs "opinions" when they're beliefs about objective reality (kind of redundant)).

 

[LabyrinthMind]

Maybe it's a tad flat, but all things are either true or false. Most things, of course, are a combination of many smaller things, those smaller things being either true or false, but when it boils right down to it, any single claim is either true or it is false. The problem is determining which it is.

Ludwig Wittgenstein abandoned theory you're advocating here.

I'm so much pleased he did that.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I didn't spend much time studying that guy. So he may have done what you said he did. Good for him. Could you provide an actual reason for me to change my mind, instead of just tossing a philosopher's name at me? Could you provide an example of something that's either not true and not false, or is neither, such that denying that everything is either true or false might be illustrated in a comprehensive manner?

 

[Irishpenguin]

You must have misread the definition of "opinion". The very definition you linked to. Here;


I included every last definition from the first source. Let's check this;
1) Do you have a single belief that's absolutely certain? Well, I hope you have one, but what about all the tohers? Okay, well, math, but all the ones about reality? If it's not "I exist" or math, you cannot be certain of it. Perhaps you could fool yourself into being certain, but then you're not certain on rational grounds (though you can have a rational belief in it. I'm pretty sure this computer I'm typing on is real, but I could be getting fooled somehow). If an opinion is a belief that you're not certain of, then most of your beliefs, all except "I exist" and math, are opinions.

Okay holy shit, I just had a serious mind fuck happen to me just now, I mean seriously, I think my brain is going to be blown away for the rest of the week at least. I finally saw the fault in my reasoning after writing a two paragraph rebuttal only to realize at the very end of it that something didn't make sense, and that was the moment where I literally had to walk into my kitchen and say "Okay, what the fuck just happened?"

and yes, I'll admit that I pretty much just glanced over at the definition that I linked but then just continued to move on with the definition that my high school taught me (which I now realize that my high school only taught me the second definition of the word "Opinion" according to that link) and if it's any consolation, I have really never heard anyone use the excuse "Well that's my opinion" as a defense and it not be a viable reasoning pertaining to what we were talking about (I.E. we were always talking about something subjective)

well yea, I guess I was just kinda dumb there. Whelp, in any case, I think I found the reason why people think that saying "Well that's my opinion" is an excuse for it not being false. I can only assume that these people were taught about the word like I was,and then somewhere along the line they adopted the 1st definitions meaning, but instead of separating the two definitions, they combined the two different meanings into the one word regardless of it's context and just continued being dumb.

And as for solving this issue, I think we are going to have to individually mind fuck every single individual on the planet in order for this "Opinion excuse" to cease to exist...

and if you wanted to see my two paragraph rebuttal ending in a mind fuck...here's the shortened version

Spoiler

There is a red brick in my yard, I point at it and say "That is a red brick in my yard" (being completely certain of myself mind you) then somebody (a stranger) walks up and says "No it's not" then I pull out a dictionary with pictures and point to the word "Brick" as well as the picture. (this is the part where it gets theoretical and nutty, but hey, it helped enlighten me) after the stranger reads my dictionary, he pulls out his own dictionary (mine was an old version) and he precedes to inform me that the dictionary people have swapped the meaning of the word "Brick" and "Octopus" so he was correct, I don't have a red brick in my yard, but instead I have a red octopus, this is where I realize that me stating "that is a red brick" was not a fact, nor an opinion regarding taste, but it was a false opinion that I though was a fact because it was based on faulty information...

I guess I had been going my whole life thinking that there was a different word for when somebodies thoughts could be proven wrong but I actually thought about it, and I guess there isn't. and that it is actually still called an opinion.

By the very definition you post, "knowledge" and "opinion" overlap. You jumped in here under the assumption that an opinion was necessarily subjective and not a fact in an objective manner (though it's an objective fact that I like pizza, the actual liking of pizza is subjective).

I'm sort of confused with what you mean here, I mean I understand now that you are correct in the overlapping of knowledge and opinion, but what did you mean by an opinion being able to be a "Fact in an objective manner" if it's in an objective manner, then isn't that just a fact since it's not pertaining to a subjective persons opinion?

However, even if we assumed you were correct, then we still have a problem (people calling beliefs "opinions" when they're beliefs about objective reality (kind of redundant)).

What kind of beliefs were you referring to here? (and let's assume I was right with this bit, even though I've already stated that I was wrong)

 

[SpaceYeti]

And as for solving this issue, I think we are going to have to individually mind fuck every single individual on the planet in order for this "Opinion excuse" to cease to exist...

I like both minds and fucking. I'm all about this plan.

I'm sort of confused with what you mean here, I mean I understand now that you are correct in the overlapping of knowledge and opinion, but what did you mean by an opinion being able to be a "Fact in an objective manner" if it's in an objective manner, then isn't that just a fact since it's not pertaining to a subjective persons opinion?

The fact that I like pizza is objective. As an onlooker who had to judge my life, he could deduce, objectively, that I like pizza. The actual liking of the pizza is subjective, but it's also a fact that I am a person who likes pizza. See? Did I say that right?

What kind of beliefs were you referring to here? (and let's assume I was right with this bit, even though I've already stated that I was wrong)

When people say it's their "opinion" that God exists, or that homosexuality is wrong... they're beliefs about objective reality. So even if opinions were necessarily subjective, then we'd have the problem of people using the word "opinion" wrong, using it to label beliefs that are objective instead of subjective. Either God exists or he does not, either being homosexual is wrong or it is not. It's not up to your personal tastes.

 

[Cavallier]

He said that you we're a accomplice in the killing of animals if you bought meat. Which is just straight out wrong. Our law says that you are accomplice if you are actually participating or if you're willingly standing, observing and not preventing a crime.

Which is not the case when you buy meat.
On the other hand you're not exactly trying to stop the killing of animals either. But you're NOT a accomplice. And when I gave him all this I just gave to you, he went "Well, that's your opinion"

This guy, the guy you were debating with, doesn't know what the word "accomplice" means. That or he did not understand what he was trying to convey to you. Obviously, what he should have argued was this: If you eat/buy meat you are providing a market for meat and thus providing a market for the killing of animals.

@OP: Fear. Many people simply cannot bring themselves to differentiate between what is objective and what is subjective. Far to many people actually believe everything (or most things) they think and tell themselves because they don't have the desire, energy, or courage to examine themselves in depth. Thus they mold their Opinions into Facts. That way they don't have to examine their opinions. They can rest assured they are facts. On the flip side these same people then turn actual Facts they fear or don't want to agree with into Opinion. People often use the phrase "that's your opinion" as a catch all for things they fear. This helps them to avoid facing the idea that the things they fear or disagree with are verifiable facts. They delude themselves utterly.

 

[LabyrinthMind]

I didn't spend much time studying that guy. So he may have done what you said he did. Good for him. Could you provide an actual reason for me to change my mind, instead of just tossing a philosopher's name at me? Could you provide an example of something that's either not true and not false, or is neither, such that denying that everything is either true or false might be illustrated in a comprehensive manner?

Things aren't true or false, it's our statements (including opinions and beliefs) about things that these concepts can be attributed to.

Consider value judgments of different sorts. If I say euthanasia is a good thing and even provide argument to back it up it doesn't make my statement true or false. Not everything we think, believe or say qualifies for truth/falsity test, for it applies only to a limited set of descriptive propositions.

I suggest you inform yourself on the logical positivists' attempts to equate verifiable and meaningful statements. It certainly sheds light on these problems.

 

[Fukyo]

What did you check? How dead sexy I am? I don't blame you.

Cute attempt at wittiness, but no.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Things aren't true or false, it's our statements (including opinions and beliefs) about things that these concepts can be attributed to.

Consider value judgments of different sorts. If I say euthanasia is a good thing and even provide argument to back it up it doesn't make my statement true or false. Not everything we think, believe or say qualifies for truth/falsity test, for it applies only to a limited set of descriptive propositions.

I suggest you inform yourself on the logical positivists' attempts to equate verifiable and meaningful statements. It certainly sheds light on these problems.

It's either true or false that you have certain thoughts about Euthanasia. Also, it's either true or false if it's morally wrong. Just because a lot of people disagree on a topic, it doesn't mean there isn't a true/false answer to it. Of course, you also have to take into consideration each individual situation, and you have to keep in mind that you may well be wrong.

 

[LabyrinthMind]

It's either true or false that you have certain thoughts about Euthanasia. Also, it's either true or false if it's morally wrong. Just because a lot of people disagree on a topic, it doesn't mean there isn't a true/false answer to it.

What you're suggesting here is that lack of information is the sole reason of disagreement and not different value systems.
However, if someone holds human life to be the ultimate value, it's highly improbable they would change their mind on issues like euthanasia in light of whatever rational argumentation.

It all comes down to core normative beliefs (ethical, aesthetical, political) which are neither true or false in the way "ordinary" or factual statements are. Those core beliefs serve as premises or axioms from which more specific beliefs are derived. As far as these have non-normative components, it makes sense to apply true/false distinction.

 

[SpaceYeti]

What you're suggesting here is that lack of information is the sole reason of disagreement and not different value systems.
However, if someone holds human life to be the ultimate value, it's highly improbable they would change their mind on issues like euthanasia in light of whatever rational argumentation.

It all comes down to core normative beliefs (ethical, aesthetical, political) which are neither true or false in the way "ordinary" or factual statements are. Those core beliefs serve as premises or axioms from which more specific beliefs are derived. As far as these have non-normative components, it makes sense to apply true/false distinction.

And is what you said true, or is it false? Or is your claim neither true nor false, or is it both?

If morality is subjective, then is that not the truth? If it's objective, then is that not the truth? We can debate which is the case all day, but either way there is a truth about the matter, no?

 

[LabyrinthMind]

And is what you said true, or is it false? Or is your claim neither true nor false, or is it both?

It is true, as I said, that there are statements neither true nor false, for they cannot be verified or falsified as is the case with facts.

In short, what i said is true. And it's no opinion.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Please answer the rest of my post.

Also, If moral, political, and aesthetic judgments are not subjective matters of taste, then what are they?

 

[snafupants]

It's either true or false that you have certain thoughts about Euthanasia. Also, it's either true or false if it's morally wrong. Just because a lot of people disagree on a topic, it doesn't mean there isn't a true/false answer to it. Of course, you also have to take into consideration each individual situation, and you have to keep in mind that you may well be wrong.

there is not a morality system embedded into the universe. the universe does not care if any one person dies today or tomorrow.

 

[SpaceYeti]

there is not a morality system embedded into the universe. the universe does not care if any one person dies today or tomorrow.

So does right and wrong exist at all?

 

[LabyrinthMind]

Please answer the rest of my post.

Also, If moral, political, and aesthetic judgments are not subjective matters of taste, then what are they?

What does "objective" and "subjective" actually mean in this context? Objective like laws of nature? Subjective like content of human mind?

Please make yourself clear on this if you want an answer.

 

[SpaceYeti]

"Objective" would, of course, be anything that exists as a part of reality outside of the mind. Subjective would then be everything else; Things that exist only in the mind.

 

[LabyrinthMind]

"Objective" would, of course, be anything that exists as a part of reality outside of the mind. Subjective would then be everything else; Things that exist only in the mind.

Morality is socially constructed and objective in the sense it exists outside and independently of human minds; however, humans do internalize moral values and rules of their societies and (to a certain degree) act in accordance with those norms and insofar morality is subjective. Since humans have the capability of reflection upon norms imposed on them they may reject to obey those rules and choose different behavioral patterns, which would be a more radical meaning of subjective morality. The same applies to political and aesthetical views - they are both objective and subjective; objectivity is grounded in shared meanings and values and subjectivity in the individual interpretation of those values and, sometimes, creating new ones.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Morality is socially constructed and objective in the sense it exists outside and independently of human minds; however, humans do internalize moral values and rules of their societies and (to a certain degree) act in accordance with those norms and insofar morality is subjective. Since humans have the capability of reflection upon norms imposed on them they may reject to obey those rules and choose different behavioral patterns, which would be a more radical meaning of subjective morality. The same applies to political and aesthetical views - they are both objective and subjective; objectivity is grounded in shared meanings and values and subjectivity in the individual interpretation of those values and, sometimes, creating new ones.

Or, to simplify all of that unnecessarily complicated verbosity; How people act is objective.

 

[LabyrinthMind]

Or, to simplify all of that unnecessarily complicated verbosity; How people act is objective.

Why do you ask if you're too lazy to read the answer?

And please don't try to translate what I said...ever.

 

[Alexk]

Although I agree with you on the original post SpaceYeti, you must subject peoples "opinions" to a test of falsifiability, as well as take into account that which has not yet been proven true, false, or unfalsifiable. That is the realm of true opinion.

There are an immense number of things that you and I would believe are false, and have plenty of reason, but they are unfalsifiable none the less.