4 ms·

Let's put our thinking caps on .... We have laws that represent our current consensus of good and bad. They can change over time. We also have cultural belief

Let's put our thinking caps on .... We have laws that represent our current consensus of good and bad. They can change over time. We also have cultural beliefs that function similarly. So, when I say, racism is bad, if someone says, "well, that's just like, your opinion, man", are they right?

pandaman 6y ago
The word "objectively" has a meaning so when you say "racism is bad" it has different meaning from when you say "racism is objectively bad". Seeing that its meaning is in an objective rather than subjective or biased way : with a basis in observable facts rather than feelings or opinions and bad here is used as morally objectionable "objectively bad" comes out as an oxymoron.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The word "objectively" has a meaning One common meaning of “objectively” in practice is as an intensifier of an inherently subjective description.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    I hear it not quite as an intensifier as an assertion that the same subjective conclusion would be frequently reached... and often implication about those who would (pretend to?) fail to reach those same conclusions. Severity seems to play a role, but by that mechanism (it's severe so it should be obvious, it's severe so it's worse if you miss it, etc) more than apart from it. It's not a... literal use of "objectively", but words are frequently put to other uses.
- adamsea 6y ago
  OK - then I challenge you - how would you describe the moral or ethical status of racism? Can we draw any moral or ethical conclusions about it at all? Seems like this "what's the proper way to use the word objective" discussion misses the forest for the trees ...
  - pandaman 6y ago
    Sorry, I do not understand what you mean, moral status is a concept applied to living things, not abstract concepts[1]. And I have no idea what "ethical status" is. 1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/
    - adamsea 6y ago
      Fair. But, I think we're kind of losing the thread here. Let's just pretend the post that kicked off our conversation said "Yes, because much of what trump is criticized for is bad" instead of " ... objectively bad", and carry on from there. Because it's not about the use of the word "objectively". It's about the immoral and unethical (and probably illegal) behavior of the current President of the United States, and people who are dying because of how the current administration has mis-handled the Covid-19 pandemic. And white supremacy being a destructive force in U.S. culture, society, and politics. Let's talk about those, instead of the proper use of the word "objectively".
      - pandaman 6y ago
        If you look up thread, the post that kicked it is, paraphrasing, "Possibilities for social interactions at the workplace are diminishing due to the extreme partisan divide", let's call this "side A". And all the rebuttals for this were, again paraphrasing, "I dunno man, I can freely interact and if you cannot - something is wrong with you personally", let's call this "side B" So far we have two opposite opinions. Neither is objective and both reflect the poster's experience if we assumed good faith, as we should. Next step, the side A brings in evidence: allegedly you cannot openly support conservative views in many coastal firms. It's not some strong, factual evidence but hearsay. Nevertheless it is an argument. So what does the side B do in response? It proclaims that conservative views are inherently, objectively bad and thus cannot be possibly supported at workplaces. If you drop "objectively" from it then it's not an argument at all. It would actually mean that side B agreed with the side A: yes, you cannot show your views because we don't like them, deal with it! It also fortifies the original argument about the partisan divide. But no, the side B does not agree. The side B makes an argument that supporting one of the two major parties and/or a president of the USA is inherently bad so this is not a partisan issue at all. It's just a fact of life: water is wet, sky is blue, Trump is evil and so are you. So you want to discuss why you think Trump is evil? I, honestly, don't care. Neither I want to explain why I think he is not. I can, however, discuss, why neither party is objectively good or evil.

pandaman 6y ago

The word "objectively" has a meaning so when you say "racism is bad" it has different meaning from when you say "racism is objectively bad". Seeing that its meaning is in an objective rather than subjective or biased way : with a basis in observable facts rather than feelings or opinions and bad here is used as morally objectionable "objectively bad" comes out as an oxymoron.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The word "objectively" has a meaning One common meaning of “objectively” in practice is as an intensifier of an inherently subjective description.
- dllthomas 6y ago
  I hear it not quite as an intensifier as an assertion that the same subjective conclusion would be frequently reached... and often implication about those who would (pretend to?) fail to reach those same conclusions. Severity seems to play a role, but by that mechanism (it's severe so it should be obvious, it's severe so it's worse if you miss it, etc) more than apart from it. It's not a... literal use of "objectively", but words are frequently put to other uses.
adamsea 6y ago
OK - then I challenge you - how would you describe the moral or ethical status of racism? Can we draw any moral or ethical conclusions about it at all? Seems like this "what's the proper way to use the word objective" discussion misses the forest for the trees ...
- pandaman 6y ago
  Sorry, I do not understand what you mean, moral status is a concept applied to living things, not abstract concepts[1]. And I have no idea what "ethical status" is. 1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/
  - adamsea 6y ago
    Fair. But, I think we're kind of losing the thread here. Let's just pretend the post that kicked off our conversation said "Yes, because much of what trump is criticized for is bad" instead of " ... objectively bad", and carry on from there. Because it's not about the use of the word "objectively". It's about the immoral and unethical (and probably illegal) behavior of the current President of the United States, and people who are dying because of how the current administration has mis-handled the Covid-19 pandemic. And white supremacy being a destructive force in U.S. culture, society, and politics. Let's talk about those, instead of the proper use of the word "objectively".
    - pandaman 6y ago
      If you look up thread, the post that kicked it is, paraphrasing, "Possibilities for social interactions at the workplace are diminishing due to the extreme partisan divide", let's call this "side A". And all the rebuttals for this were, again paraphrasing, "I dunno man, I can freely interact and if you cannot - something is wrong with you personally", let's call this "side B" So far we have two opposite opinions. Neither is objective and both reflect the poster's experience if we assumed good faith, as we should. Next step, the side A brings in evidence: allegedly you cannot openly support conservative views in many coastal firms. It's not some strong, factual evidence but hearsay. Nevertheless it is an argument. So what does the side B do in response? It proclaims that conservative views are inherently, objectively bad and thus cannot be possibly supported at workplaces. If you drop "objectively" from it then it's not an argument at all. It would actually mean that side B agreed with the side A: yes, you cannot show your views because we don't like them, deal with it! It also fortifies the original argument about the partisan divide. But no, the side B does not agree. The side B makes an argument that supporting one of the two major parties and/or a president of the USA is inherently bad so this is not a partisan issue at all. It's just a fact of life: water is wet, sky is blue, Trump is evil and so are you. So you want to discuss why you think Trump is evil? I, honestly, don't care. Neither I want to explain why I think he is not. I can, however, discuss, why neither party is objectively good or evil.