MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: > Blake continues: > > Do you have to explain why I believe that there's a genuine objective > absolute best candidate? No you don't. I've already done that. > Instead you should try to refute my arguments. > > I reply: > > Maybe it's possible to show you that there isn't an objective best > candidate. So far I've probably only asserted that there isn't. > Here's a brief summary of the argument as I see it, using an example. If we have a cannibal, and a prisoner, then each has a conflicting desire. Each will also come with his own opinion of what should be done, independent of his personal wishes. This opinion will be the result of various factors but will be heavily influenced by the opinion of his culture. Now, I argue that it might make sense to say that one side is actually right, or that one outcome really is best. If you are to be consistent, you have to argue that statements of that form are meaningless, and that although we can say that an outcome is better for a particular side, or considered right by a particular culture, it is meaningless to say that one side is better in an objective sense, which is I think what we mean by "absolute". I will address this issue, but only after considering a simpler case of objectivity.
If you have the right combination of particles (or whatever it is they have in physics these days), then you have a cat. The question of what constitutes a cat is in some sense objective, leaving aside the issue of beings that are part way between a cat and something else. If I have a sufficiently precise definition of what makes a cat, and I find some things that fit the definition, it is not really subjective. It is not that some things are cats to me or to my culture, they are just cats, although only by our definition. If someone else had a very different definition of a cat, for example, someone speaking a foreign language, I would not consider this as making the issue subjective. For example, someone might think that a cat referred to any light visible in the night sky. I would not claim that that definition was wrong, but it would not make any difference to whether cats are objectively determined. There are two different definitions, but each is objective for its own use. Similarly, if I claim that something is "good" and you claim that it is "bad", I see two main possibilities. Perhaps you define good and bad differently, or perhaps one of us is applying a common definition incorrectly. But this does not make the valuation subjective (except in the loose sense of difficult to ascertain). For example, if someone claimed that they knew that such and such was the right thing to do, but were not sure if they should do it, I would argue that either they are using a different definition of "right" or "should" than me, because to me saying that something is the right thing to do, and saying that one should do it, are synonymous. Similarly someone who claimed that one should increase suffering (independent of any other benefit) would have a different concept of "should" than I have. So, you might ask, how would I convince someone who thinks they "should" increase suffering that they are wrong? But that's the wrong question. How they define "should" is only a question of definition. The real question is how can someone who is trying to increase suffering be convinced to stop, independent of how they choose to define such terms as "right" or "should". Presumably, one would appeal to their compassion and their reason. --- Blake Cretney (http://condorcet.org)
