Objective: Based on fact. Must be real not fantasy, and therefore clearly observable in reality.
Not based on one's own personal feelings or bias or opinion.
Subjective: Based on
one's own personal feelings or bias, or opinion, and not based on facts.
This is what I said:
In my subjective view of reality, such things as love/compassion/empathy are intrinsic to our nature, and they are not human constructs any more than a human is, or a rock in my yard is. This is the goodness that I experience and see in mankind that is an objective morality because it's common to all people and is not immoral by nature.
There are two sentences above. The first sentence describes my own subjective view and experience, that Love/compassion is intrinsic to our nature (see maternal love and empathy). And therefore love/compassion are not human constructs. This is the definition of intrinsic I am using,
adjective
- belonging naturally; essential.
The second sentence then proceeds to say that the same goodness of love and compassion that I experience, is not just experienced by me in my own subjective view, but is observed as being experienced by everyone else also, and in mankind as a whole. Therefore, morality is objective (factual), based on factual evidence of a moral impetus in mankind, not based on my own subjective view or anyone else's.
Not exactly. In my own subjective view of reality, I have experienced love and compassion, and they compel me to do what is right and not do what is wrong. But it is also observed as a fact that the same love/compassion I experience, is also a common experience for everyone, not just me. So, since Love/compassion is the impetus in mankind to do what is right and not do what is wrong, morality is objective.
Estrid:
how exactly can a person be objective, look only
at facts, have an open mind, be intellectually honest if
they come to the table with unshakeable conviction
that they are right, though they applied no evidence at
all to that belief?
Childeye:
If they cannot see and apply any evidence that Morality exists in reality as a positive impetus in this dichotomy, Moral/immoral, then they probably have a subjective opinion of what morality is which would not qualify as being objective.
Childeye Rephrase:
I gave evidence of love/compassion existing in mankind as a fact of reality, and not a fantasy or opinion of mine.
I pointed out that love/compassion is
a moral impetus in mankind, in that it compels a person to do good unto others, and not to do harm. It therefore is never an immoral impetus.
I pointed out that since love/compassion is innate in mankind, it is therefore not a human construct.
For morality to be subjective, it would have to be each human constructing their own morality and immorality according to their own personal opinions. Which necessarily means they could opine that something is moral, when in reality it is immoral, and it therefore would also be subjective immorality.
For what it's worth, I would tend to agree with your overall sentiment. But to establish morality as objective one must qualify morality in a contrast to immorality by some distinguishing and factual means. Why? Because in a subjective morality, it is a matter of opinion as to what morality and immorality even are. This is why I use love/compassion as the indicator of a moral impetus, and carnality as the impetus for immorality. Because in the truest sense of the terms carnal vanity is self-centered by nature, and love/compassion never is.
im·pe·tus
/ˈimpədəs/
noun
- the force or energy with which a body moves.
