If we really value objectivity...

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Objectivity is a multifaceted concept. However, I want to focus on one particular aspect: the person making an objective inquiry does not care what the results are. The goal is for an inquiry to be reliable so that every person following the same steps should get the same results. If someone following the same steps gets different results then we know that something is wrong. It is a matter of degree. The more that an inquiry is designed to eliminate biases, distortions, etc., the more we gain--the more reliable it is. The feelings that a person has about possible results are irrelevant.

A lot of people say that they value objectivity. Yet, I have noticed that the more objectively a person approaches a lot of questions the more inhospitable and irrational others become. For example, a lot of people find female genital mutilation to be very repugnant and they continuously make their feelings known when FGM is being discussed. Contrast that with, say, a geologist studying the movement of plates. How the geologist feels about the movement of plates never enters the conversation. The geologist can move from one fact to another without anybody missing a beat. But bring up the fact that people who practice FGM do not see it as mutilation and a predictable hostile tone is going to be what a lot of people respond with. Irrational responses like the emotionally charged use of words like "barbaric" are also predictable. People make it extremely difficult to approach a lot of questions objectively.

If we really value objectivity then why are we so often so hostile to its practice?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What a tangled web ethics is. Its like spaghetti junction.

 

[quatona]

Objectivity is a multifaceted concept. However, I want to focus on one particular aspect: the person making an objective inquiry does not care what the results are. The goal is for an inquiry to be reliable so that every person following the same steps should get the same results. If someone following the same steps gets different results then we know that something is wrong. It is a matter of degree. The more that an inquiry is designed to eliminate biases, distortions, etc., the more we gain--the more reliable it is. The feelings that a person has about possible results are irrelevant.

A lot of people say that they value objectivity. Yet, I have noticed that the more objectively a person approaches a lot of questions the more inhospitable and irrational others become. For example, a lot of people find female genital mutilation to be very repugnant and they continuously make their feelings known when FGM is being discussed. Contrast that with, say, a geologist studying the movement of plates. How the geologist feels about the movement of plates never enters the conversation. The geologist can move from one fact to another without anybody missing a beat. But bring up the fact that people who practice FGM do not see it as mutilation and a predictable hostile tone is going to be what a lot of people respond with. Irrational responses like the emotionally charged use of words like "barbaric" are also predictable. People make it extremely difficult to approach a lot of questions objectively.

If we really value objectivity then why are we so often so hostile to its practice?

To work from your examples:
The movement of tectonic plates isn´t typically discussed for its moral or ethical value.
FGM is typically not discussed for the mechanics of it (pretty much all objective facts about it are well known) but exactly for its moral or ethical value.
And since morals/ethics aren´t objective but subjective (and even for moral objectivists they aren´t in the same way objective as technical facts - in that they are about "ought", not about "is"), there is a significant difference in the discussion of plate tectonics and FGM.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is there a rift then between types of rationality? I am recalling heidegger who claimed there was a ontological rift-design between the "self seclusion" of nature and the "signification and reference" of the man made environment.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

To work from your examples:
The movement of tectonic plates isn´t typically discussed for its moral or ethical value.
FGM is typically not discussed for the mechanics of it (pretty much all objective facts about it are well known) but exactly for its moral or ethical value.
And since morals/ethics aren´t objective but subjective (and even for moral objectivists they aren´t in the same way objective as technical facts - in that they are about "ought", not about "is"), there is a significant difference in the discussion of plate tectonics and FGM.

Nothing is purely subjective or purely objective. It is a matter of degree. How subjective or objective a person is in relation to a question depends on his/her needs, goals, etc.

 

[quatona]

Nothing is purely subjective or purely objective. It is a matter of degree.

Exactly, and that´s why different fields, topic etc. are approached differently.
So I am still wondering how that was even a question.

How subjective or objective a person is in relation to a question depends on his/her needs, goals, etc.

This may play a greater or lesser part in many fields, but the individual needs, goals etc. play an almost insignificant part in the approach to certain fields. Think mathematical equations, for example.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Set theory and logic are fairy tales, but still worth studying - Alfred Tarski