Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

Maybe that should tell you that morals are SUBJECTIVE!

Yet you are the one who claims that morality is objective, despite admitting to having no way to measure them objectively.

According to your logic, we can never determine realness and truth except for only things in the material world. Yet we all claim and appeal to realness and truth every day in our language and actions. Is not this a different way of making truth and realness claims.

Otherwise, we would have to say that anyone who claims that someone else should be honest when engaging is just expressing some subjective view that we should not treat as real or truth. We would descend into chaos if that was the case.

When you claim I am making a logical fallacy or misrepresenting your argument or making things up what are you doing. You are declaring that I should be honest. You are appealing to the value of honesty epistemically. You give it realness and truth because if I lie you will use that to point out I am being dishonest. If we take it away then our argument would become irrational and useless.

Excuses, excuses...

Its easy to dismiss things by saying its an excuse. Tell me why its an excuse. Tell me why it is not a reasonable and logical thing to say that believing in the sun revolving around the earth is an illogical thing to believe and can be defeated. Are you saying we should count it as a valid belief we should use to determine further truths? You are on shaky ground.

Okay, they both go around their baycenter which is inside the sun, but now you're just quibbling...

No you want to call it quibbling because it exposes the weakness of your argument.

And that has nothing to do with whether people actually believe it or not.

When it comes to morality is does. We are always claiming that people with unreal beliefs are crazy or unsound like Charlie Mason, ISIS, Hitler, Starlin, etc. Even with politics and the claims, they make like how people attack Trump and call his claims as lies and fake news, etc.

It is important to determine what are false beliefs and what is the truth when it comes to morality. That is why there is such a thing as a properly basic belief as opposed to any belief. It is scrutinized and tested to stand up to defeaters to see if it is really something we should believe in.

But you are unable to provide anything more than opinion to do so.

No, I have provide support. You provide that support for the fact that there are epistemic truths and realness. Your or I appealing to the value of honesty in our debates makes the value of honesty real and truthful independent of our opinions. We cannot claim the view that honesty is not a value in our debates whether we want to or not.

Our views are irrelevant because whether you or I realized it we made honesty real and truthful. This is the same for anyone who appeals to epistemic values. Any objection you raise about morality being subjective can also be raised against epistemic values. Yet we all appeal to epistemic values like they are real and truthful. Epistemic values are intertwined with morality like the moral of honesty. So if we claim and appeal to honesty epistemically and make it real and truthful then we are also making it real and truthful morally. IE

Moral Realism: Defended
People prescribe that honesty should be objectively binding in philosophical or scientific discussions. Since in real-life situations we agree there are epistemic duties and values used in discussions we, therefore, agree moral duties and facts are objective.

So if you are a moral non-realist and you have ever claimed someone has done something objectively wrong in misrepresenting your argument then you have assumed epistemic virtues and duties while arguing such duties are either subjective or not real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkgD4w9w1k

The Best Argument for Moral Realism?
The problem with trying to determine ethics and moral realism is that people want to fit any evidence into a physical scientific description. So already the picture and language are restricted to one way of functioning. Yet the same people are quite happy about talking of justification in science, rational acceptability or warranted acceptability, etc. without a qualm. Yet being warranted, plausible, and coherent are all epistemic value terms.

All the arguments that claim morals cannot be objective such as cultures disagree, whether we will all come to the same moral truths about 'what’s simple', 'what’s the right action', 'what’s more coherent' than “what” could also be raised as objections against epistemic values. It is argued that there is something funny about the notion of moral obligation, that it is both something you can believe and is action-guiding that makes it queer. But believing that a theory is superior all-around on a scale of plausibility, simplicity, coherence is also action-guiding.

A lot of the same arguments against moral realism can be applied to epistemic realism. If more people came to realize that if you don’t believe in ethical objectivity if these are your reasons for not supporting objective morality then consistency requires you to give up epistemic objectivity as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW3VuMUWim0&t=7s

Again, you've never provided any objective evidence to back up your claims.

I have, you've just completely missed it because you don't understand how support for morality is made. The logical argument I posted for epistemic realism is one of those supports. If an arguments stand up then it becomes the support for that claim in the argument being truthful. That is how we support philosophical truths. There is no other way and just because they are not scientific doesn't mean they are any less valid. You need to understand propositions based on logical arguments.

 

[VirOptimus]

What do you mean by not given it a thought? People may not have stopped to consider how they appeal to epistemic values philosophically as they would take a certain type of enquiry that most people don't really get that deep with. But that doesn't mean they have not given it a thought as far as their default responses to situations that cause them to appeal to epistemic values. No one can avoid it and if they do then they are operating outside the norms of society and they would not be able to function and get along with others.

Whenever we are interacting with someone and we appeal to certain standards that we expect and assume others to abide by like being honest and respectful we are appealing to epistemic values as if they are real and truthful in being an independent measure of how we should behave. We cannot avoid it. Even if someone claims to not value these things they are forced to if they want to engage.

Look, you only ”debate” this because of your religious belief. I get that it is important for you but its obvious that you are not open to learn or debate seriously.

You only want to preach and confirm your own religious belief. That is not conductive to real knowledge.

 

[stevevw]

Look, you only ”debate” this because of your religious belief. I get that it is important for you but its obvious that you are not open to learn or debate seriously.

You only want to preach and confirm your own religious belief. That is not conductive to real knowledge.

You must have thrown every logical fallacy and other excuses in the book at me so far to avoid dealing with the content. I haven't been pushing religion and in fact, have not mentioned God at all.

I want you to address the content. Explain to me how people appeal to these epistemic values like they are real. They make these values true by the way they use them. This cannot be denied or avoided.

 

[VirOptimus]

You must have thrown every logical fallacy and other excuses in the book at me so far to avoid dealing with the content. I haven't been pushing religion and in fact, have not mentioned God at all.

I want you to address the content. Explain to me how people appeal to these epistemic values like they are real. They make these values true by the way they use them. This cannot be denied or avoided.

No I wont. I have made my position clear. Your ”argument” is just a populum logical fallacy and faulty logic. You have made no argument of substance at all.

My post stands, its obvious you just search for links that you think support your religious belief. You are not interested in real philosophy at all. If you where you would learn the basics and stop trying to ”win” an un-winable debate.

 

[Kylie]

According to your logic, we can never determine realness and truth except for only things in the material world. Yet we all claim and appeal to realness and truth every day in our language and actions. Is not this a different way of making truth and realness claims.

Otherwise, we would have to say that anyone who claims that someone else should be honest when engaging is just expressing some subjective view that we should not treat as real or truth. We would descend into chaos if that was the case.

When you claim I am making a logical fallacy or misrepresenting your argument or making things up what are you doing. You are declaring that I should be honest. You are appealing to the value of honesty epistemically. You give it realness and truth because if I lie you will use that to point out I am being dishonest. If we take it away then our argument would become irrational and useless.

Or we could MEASURE THEIR EFFECT on the material world?

Its easy to dismiss things by saying its an excuse. Tell me why its an excuse. Tell me why it is not a reasonable and logical thing to say that believing in the sun revolving around the earth is an illogical thing to believe and can be defeated. Are you saying we should count it as a valid belief we should use to determine further truths? You are on shaky ground.

You are invoking special pleading and then when I call you out on it, you tell me I'm not justified in doing so.

No you want to call it quibbling because it exposes the weakness of your argument.

No, I call it quibbling because you are wasting time trying to turn this into a discussion about the Earth's orbit around the sun instead of actually dealing with the issue.

When it comes to morality is does. We are always claiming that people with unreal beliefs are crazy or unsound like Charlie Mason, ISIS, Hitler, Starlin, etc. Even with politics and the claims, they make like how people attack Trump and call his claims as lies and fake news, etc.

It is important to determine what are false beliefs and what is the truth when it comes to morality. That is why there is such a thing as a properly basic belief as opposed to any belief. It is scrutinized and tested to stand up to defeaters to see if it is really something we should believe in.

You claim that when it comes to morality argument from popularity is valid, but refuse to say WHY.

No, I have provide support. You provide that support for the fact that there are epistemic truths and realness. Your or I appealing to the value of honesty in our debates makes the value of honesty real and truthful independent of our opinions. We cannot claim the view that honesty is not a value in our debates whether we want to or not.

Nah, you've just repeatedly used the same flawed arguments again and again, as though repeating them somehow makes them more valid.

Our views are irrelevant because whether you or I realized it we made honesty real and truthful. This is the same for anyone who appeals to epistemic values. Any objection you raise about morality being subjective can also be raised against epistemic values. Yet we all appeal to epistemic values like they are real and truthful. Epistemic values are intertwined with morality like the moral of honesty. So if we claim and appeal to honesty epistemically and make it real and truthful then we are also making it real and truthful morally.

Except your source never actually proved that, did it? Your source merely said, "They are sufficiently similar that we can treat them the same."

Not once did your source demonstrate that similarity, and not once did it demonstrate that this similarity is sufficient justification for assuming the same reasoning can apply to both.

Once again, your position is built on assumption and unsupported premises.

I have, you've just completely missed it because you don't understand how support for morality is made. The logical argument I posted for epistemic realism is one of those supports. If an arguments stand up then it becomes the support for that claim in the argument being truthful. That is how we support philosophical truths. There is no other way and just because they are not scientific doesn't mean they are any less valid. You need to understand propositions based on logical arguments.

Of course. Anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't understand! Because you can't possibly be wrong, can you?

You don't seem to understand that philosophical ideas are not objective, they are subjective.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

You don't seem to understand that philosophical ideas are not objective, they are subjective.

He doesnt understand philosophy period.

 

[stevevw]

Or we could MEASURE THEIR EFFECT on the material world?

And how do we do that?

You are invoking special pleading and then when I call you out on it, you tell me I'm not justified in doing so.

How am I invoking special pleading. I was talking about properly basic beliefs. You gave an example that's not a properly basic belief to support your argument. I just point that out. I am talking about realness and truth. These need to be reasoned and justified. You cannot make an unreal idea real or truthful. Otherwise, we would then have to say that there is no gravity so we can walk off a cliff without any problems. That would cause a lot of problems.

No, I call it quibbling because you are wasting time trying to turn this into a discussion about the Earth's orbit around the sun instead of actually dealing with the issue.

I did deal with the issue. Do you even know what the issue is? The issue is about what can be justified as real and truth or a properly basic belief. You cannot just present anything as a properly basic belief.

Your example of people believing that the sun orbits the earth is a valid belief and "truth" statement just because some people act that way is not a valid "truth" or properly basic belief. It doesn't stand the defeater test that shows it is an unreal and false idea. If we didn't have some way of determining the "truth" about beliefs, about what we experience then anything could be presented as real and truthful. This is not special pleading or excuses but simple reasoning and logic.

You claim that when it comes to morality argument from popularity is valid, but refuse to say WHY.

No, I am not saying that is the only support. I am also saying that people act/react like moral values are real and "truthful". The fact that you protest that I make a logical fallacy based on arguments of popularity shows that you act like the value of "honesty" is real and I should abide by it.

This is the same logic I am using for moral values. So it is not just about popularity but the way people qualify certain moral values are real and "truthful" in the way they treat and appeal to them.

Nah, you've just repeatedly used the same flawed arguments again and again, as though repeating them somehow makes them more valid.

How is it flawed. Explain to me how it is flawed. You can't can you? This argument is a common one used by philosophers and it is a reasoned and logical one. It stands on its own feet. You cannot deny that people appeal to epistemic values like honesty, make value judgments in their interactions making these values real and "truthful". Otherwise, you cannot appeal to these when you engage with me. I can then lie and make logical fallacies without any comebacks.

Except your source never actually proved that, did it? Your source merely said, "They are sufficiently similar that we can treat them the same."

Not once did your source demonstrate that similarity, and not once did it demonstrate that this similarity is sufficient justification for assuming the same reasoning can apply to both.

Once again, your position is built on assumption and unsupported premises.

OK it is good that you at least acknowledge that the realness and truth about epistemic values like honesty. That is halfway there. That shows you that realness and "truth" (objectivity) can be determined besides physical science methods.

So tell me if you acknowledge that epistemic values can be made real and "truthful" regardless of whether we want to view them as such because we act (appeal) to epistemic values. Then why can't the same logic apply to moral values? What is the difference? Both are non-physical claims to "truth" and realness and both are a value of sorts. In fact, the value of honesty (epistemically) can hardly be separated from the value of honesty (morally). How would you even determine how to separate them.

But the articles I linked do provide support for how epistemic values are intertwined with moral values and cannot be separated. Here is the evidence.
Here
A lot of the same arguments against moral realism can be applied to epistemic realism. If more people came to realize that if you don’t believe in ethical objectivity if these are your reasons for not supporting objective morality then consistency requires you to give up epistemic objectivity as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW3VuMUWim0&t=7s
Using the same logic that if morals are only subjective and there is no truth to them then we have to also use the same logic for epistemic values as having "truth" and realness. As a subjectivist consistency requires you to treat epistemic values as subjective. But people don't so logically it stands that based on an argument of consistency moral values are real.

and here
The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism
An interesting question to raise about these views is whether they imply that other types of normative facts, such as epistemic facts, do not exist. This book develops the argument that they do. That is, it contends that moral and epistemic facts are sufficiently similar that, if moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts also do not exist.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285966919_The_Normative_Web_An_Argument_for_Moral_Realism

So Terrence Cuneo makes the argument that if we want to deny moral facts then we have to deny epistemic facts based on the fact they have similar qualities and are determined and believed in the same ways. His argument addresses the objections and provides reasoned and logic as to why moral realism is just as valid as epistemic realism IE
This argument provides not simply a defense of a robustly realist view of ethics, but a positive argument for this position. In so doing, it engages with sophisticated skeptical positions in epistemology, such as error theories, expressivist views, and reductionist views of epistemic reasons.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285966919_The_Normative_Web_An_Argument_for_Moral_Realism

And also here
I provide three independent arguments for the “Parity Premise,” the claim that if epistemic realism is true, then moral realism is also true.

My project in this chapter is to provide an argument in favor of the Parity Premise. I will do this by working out the implications of Epistemic value Theory (EVT) and showing that any epistemic realist who accepts it should also accept moral realism. The argument in a nutshell is this. Consider what relationship, or relationships, must obtain between a cognitive state and epistemic value (either the value itself, in the abstract, or an instance of that value) in order for that cognitive state to count as epistemically justified, or epistemically virtuous in some respect. Suppose that cognitive states count as epistemically good so long as they promote the epistemic value. In that case, some actions will also count as good or bad based on whether, and to what degree, they promote the epistemic value. So the same value, or values, that ground epistemic assessments also provide us with grounds for evaluating actions. Further 67 reasoning will show that it makes sense to call these evaluations ethical evaluations. Since EVT is a plausible account of epistemic normativity, we have defeasible grounds for thinking that moral and epistemic realism stand or fall together.
From Epistemic to Moral Realism: an Argument for Ethical Truth

Of course. Anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't understand! Because you can't possibly be wrong, can you?

I am not saying this as an argument from ignorance. But rather saying that there is more to the logic and reasoning that taking things at face value. There is a strong case to be made based on logic and reasoned arguments. But you need to understand this if you are to appreciate what I am saying.

You don't seem to understand that philosophical ideas are not objective, they are subjective.

No that is where you are wrong. Your confusion comes from believing that the only objective facts that we can determine are physical ones through scientific inquiry. But we can also make objective factual claims about what is real and true philosophically, with our language and beliefs. Such as the value of honesty being an objective fact because we give it realness and "truth". Objective facts are independent of human subjective views.

The claim I have "head" is an objective fact. The claim you think morality is subjective is an objective fact to you. The claim that epistemic values like honesty are real and "truthful is an objective claim because it is real and truth independent of anyone's views. They have to treat it that way whether they view it as subjective because it stands on its own merit for giving human engagement sense and value. So objective facts such as epistemic and moral realism can be claimed as well.

In philosophy, the concept fact is considered in epistemology and ontology. Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A "fact" can be defined as something that is the case—that is, a state of affairs.[12][13]
Fact - Wikipedia

 

[stevevw]

He doesnt understand philosophy period.

Speaking to Kylie here who liked you post. Isn't it funny how you protest and infer that I am saying that "you don't understand therefore you are wrong" like with this claim
Kylie said
Of course. Anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't understand! Because you can't possibly be wrong, can you?
And then do the same thing yourself in the saying because I disagree I must not understand philosophy without showing why that is the case. Just goes to show we are all the same. What's good for the geese is good for the gander. lol.

 

[VirOptimus]

Speaking to Kylie here who liked you post. Isn't it funny how you protest and infer that I am saying that "you don't understand therefore you are wrong" like with this claim
Kylie said
Of course. Anyone who disagrees with you just doesn't understand! Because you can't possibly be wrong, can you?
And then do the same thing yourself in the saying because I disagree I must not understand philosophy without showing why that is the case. Just goes to show we are all the same. What's good for the geese is good for the gander. lol.

No, I posted that because of what you post.

Its obvious to anyone reading your preachings.

A question; can you be wrong on the subject?

 

[stevevw]

No, I posted that because of what you post.

Its obvious to anyone reading your preachings.

I was actually referring to Kylie but perhaps should have replied to her directly. How is what I am saying preaching when I am providing evidence.

A question; can you be wrong on the subject?

Yes of course. This is the same for anything. But I could say the same to you or anyone on this forum who insists they are right and the other person is wrong. You are doing the same in claiming I am wrong and don't understand. You are saying you are right and I am wrong. Anyone on this thread is saying I am wrong and they are right. But they don't supply support. So who is the one claiming they can never be wrong here?

I don't think you have once acknowledged anything I have said has a grain of truth of validity to it which is an extreme position to take and cannot be logically correct as statistics would show that a certain % is valid. I am not saying that what I have argued is 100% correct. There is always the possibility that it can be wrong. But the arguments and support point to it being more likely to be true.

I argue with support and not from my personal views and all that support cannot be entirely wrong. Even the experts agree and even if you discount any arguments from popularity you cannot say that they are all completely wrong in their support for moral realism. I am saying based on the evidence from most experts it is more likely that moral realism exists. This is opposed to people claiming I am wrong have provided little or no evidence and so are more or less saying believe my say so I am right and you are wrong. That in itself is telling.

You also have to remember some of the evidence is logically argued and self-supporting. You cannot deny it or otherwise, you are supporting irrational claims. Like saying that if you and I agree that honesty is a value that will help us determine what is what in a debate that gives honesty "truth" status. It is a self-supporting fact. Sure you can deny it but if you do you shoot yourself in the foot. You can no longer function in any coherent way when engaging with others.

 

[VirOptimus]

I was actually referring to Kylie but perhaps should have replied to her directly. How is what I am saying preaching when I am providing evidence.

Yes of course. This is the same for anything. But I could say the same to you or anyone on this forum who insists they are right and the other person is wrong. You are doing the same in claiming I am wrong and don't understand. You are saying you are right and I am wrong. Anyone on this thread is saying I am wrong and they are right. But they don't supply support. So who is the one claiming they can never be wrong here?

I don't think you have once acknowledged anything I have said has a grain of truth of validity to it which is an extreme position to take and cannot be logically correct as statistics would show that a certain % is valid. I am not saying that what I have argued is 100% correct. There is always the possibility that it can be wrong. But the arguments and support point to it being more likely to be true.

I argue with support and not from my personal views and all that support cannot be entirely wrong. Even the experts agree and even if you discount any arguments from popularity you cannot say that they are all completely wrong in their support for moral realism. I am saying based on the evidence from most experts it is more likely that moral realism exists.

You also have to remember some of the evidence is logically argued and self-supporting. You cannot deny it or otherwise, you are supporting irrational claims. Like saying that if you and I agree that honesty is a value that will help us determine what is what in a debate that gives honesty "truth" status. It is a self-supporting fact. Sure you can deny it but if you do you shoot yourself in the foot. You can no longer function in any coherent way when engaging with others.

Of course I can be ”wrong”. In fact, I count on it as my views are likely to change with maturity and me collecting more knowledge. Although its incredibly unlikely I will ever believe in values existing.

I have not preached my view, I have critiqued your arguments as they are faulty.

 

[Speedwell]

Quite simply because science can only describe/explain something and not tell us why something is. It can explain how the universe came about, how evolution helps us survive. But it cannot tell us why the universe is there and why we need or should survive and why something is right and wrong. This is an obvious understanding in ethics.

I did give my own explanation but you said "All you have done is fabricate your own version of the possibilities and refuted that. It's called knocking down a straw man". As I stated I was explaining things based on the articles linked. It was a summary of what ethicists say about moral naturalism.
Which experts are you talking about. The ones I quoted support varying forms of anti-naturalism. The point is naturalism refutes itself and you don't need to be an expert. Besides, it seems contradictory that a subjectivist wants to even support any form of objective morality as it negates subjective morality. It actually supports what I am saying that there are objective moral values that we all appeal to by our lived moral experience.
Of course, it is a fundamental understanding of ethics. It is not an appeal to a vague something. It is a clear and logical argument that morality which is non-physical cannot be equated to something physical like scientific explanations. No matter what idea you use (wellbeing, evolution, or whatever) it doesn't explain right and wrong morally.

How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry

 

[zippy2006]

Wow, this thread just keeps going!

Although its incredibly unlikely I will ever believe in values existing.

I searched through your last 50 posts in this thread to try to find some sort of argument for your claim that objective morality and values do not exist. The only post that got close was this one:

As an aside; honesty is just something you as an moral agent put as value on an act. It is wholly a "belief" on the agent, not someting external.

Honesty is a reality apart from opinions about honesty. If you ask someone if they are angry they might say yes or no. Either response could be objectively honest or dishonest depending on whether they are in fact angry. Accordingly, your assessment about whether their response was honest or dishonest would be either true or false.

 

[VirOptimus]

Wow, this thread just keeps going!



I searched through your last 50 posts in this thread to try to find some sort of argument for your claim that objective morality and values do not exist. The only post that got close was this one:



Honesty is a reality apart from opinions about honesty. If you ask someone if they are angry they might say yes or no. Either response could be objectively honest or dishonest depending on whether they are in fact angry. Accordingly, your assessment about whether their response was honest or dishonest would be either true or false.

Objective/subjective is for me meaningless terms as objective presupposes an objective agent, i.e. God(s).

 

[zippy2006]

Objective/subjective is for me meaningless terms as objective presupposes an objective agent, i.e. God(s).

Recalling one of your last 50 posts, you said that pain and pleasure cannot be measured because they are purely subjective. This already provides a meaningful difference. In the common tongue objective/subjective follow the public/private distinction. Pain is subjective; expressing that you have felt pain is objective. The experience of pain is subjective; the yelled "Ouch!" is objective.

 

[stevevw]

Of course I can be ”wrong”. In fact, I count on it as my views are likely to change with maturity and me collecting more knowledge. Although its incredibly unlikely I will ever believe in values existing.

I have not preached my view, I have critiqued your arguments as they are faulty.

You have not critiqued anything. All you have done is protested no, no, no, and no and it seems you don't want to learn as you are too quick to dismiss things. I don't think your mind is as open as you claim.
IE VirOptimus said
Post #2058
and no, I wouldnt and neither would it matter.
Post #2219
No I wont. I give the answers your posts deserve.
Post #2325
No, just no.
Post #2450
Its just religious blather and no, you have not managed to support anything.
Post #2598
No you do not understand. And neither do you understand ”the experts”.
Post #2611
No they arent.
Post #2739
No "we all" dont do that.
Post #2787
No, and no
Post #2805
No they arent.
Post #2806
No its not. And yes it does.
Post #2807
Haha, no.
Post PM#2829
No
Post #2848
No, it's exactly the same.

These are examples of your post. Basically objections. No explanation, no reasoning, nothing. An occasional 2 or 3 sentence reply with a more detailed objection or dismissal but that's about it. Certainly not the critique you claim. Only claims I don't know what I'm talking about so I need to read so and so. In other words, I should understand things like you do, and then I will understand the truth. lol, You don't know how to debate.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip- You don't know how to debate.

I do.

 

[VirOptimus]

Recalling one of your last 50 posts, you said that pain and pleasure cannot be measured because they are purely subjective. This already provides a meaningful difference. In the common tongue objective/subjective follow the public/private distinction. Pain is subjective; expressing that you have felt pain is objective. The experience of pain is subjective; the yelled "Ouch!" is objective.

I have not said that anything is ”subjective”.

 

[zippy2006]

I have not said that anything is ”subjective”.

Well, here is what you said:

No we cannot measure pain or pleasure, we can know that things may cause pain (touching a hot plate if the nerves work) but we cannot measure it. Again, as its a subject, a person, experiencing something its not objective.

The principle you are mobilizing is the idea that the experience of a subject is not objective. Whether or not you used the specific word "subjective," you defined "objective" as contrary to the mere experience of a subject. So my point holds: you yourself have provided meaningful propositions about the nature of objectivity.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well, here is what you said:



The principle you are mobilizing is the idea that the experience of a subject is not objective. Whether or not you used the specific word "subjective," you defined "objective" as contrary to the mere experience of a subject. So my point holds: you yourself have provided meaningful propositions about the nature of objectivity.

No, I rejected objective as a meaningful term.