Originally Posted by Mallymkun

I wouldn't say it's wholly subjective either. Subjective means "influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions". If we're biologically hardwired into perceiving a certain kind of beauty, then it's surely none of those things.

Originally Posted by cowmeat

1+1=2.
Our perceptions of this truth don't change the fact that it's an objective truth.
I talked about the illusion of objectivity earlier and I think you are focusing on that illusion.
There are very few things objectively true in general, not to mention such complex and sensitive things as beauty.

Originally Posted by Ele

The proper line to draw here is the difference between things that are concrete (real, tangible) and things that are abstractions (conceptualisations, intangible). It's possible to establish truth and objectivity with concrete things because they have a basis in actual reality, so we can investigate them with the scientific method (+logic and reason) and come up with objective truths - Statements of fact.

It's much harder (but I wouldn't say impossible) to come up with objective truths about abstractions. They have no basis in reality, but that doesn't mean that we can't use reason and science to come to 'objective' conclusions. They may not be objective in the sense that nobody can come up with a different conclusion, but they are objective in the sense that any sane, reasonable person would agree with them. I don't think it's far-fetched for us to be able to make objective judgements about certain subjective matters. I think it's possible for us to find truth in the realm of abstractions by using some of the same tools we use to find it in the concrete world - logic and reason.

Take morality, for example. Any sane and reasonable person would agree that it's never OK to torture and rape a child - There are no circumstances in the universe in which that sort of behaviour would ever be considered acceptable. We do not need to be wishy-washy and say, 'Hey man, moral relativism, each to their own'. No, that is an objectively immoral act. Any course of action that decreases suffering and increases happiness is good and moral, any course of action that does the opposite is bad and immoral. Would any sane and reasonable person disagree with that as a starting proposition?

Is it technically 'objectivity'? No, because we're talking about conceptualisations that don't actually exist. Can we, however, achieve some standards of 'objectivity' and make a statement of fact about conceptual things though? I think we can, so long as we put on our thinking caps and justify it with logic and reason.

Originally Posted by Ele

There are no circumstances in the universe in which that sort of behaviour would ever be considered acceptable.

Originally Posted by Zockinator

That's a pretty bold statement considering what kind of fucked up shit is going on in the animal kingdom. Animals raping each other, or eating their children, for example. There are numerous examples of nature making animals do things that we humans would consider inherently immoral.

Originally Posted by cowmeat

"There are no circumstances in the universe in which that sort of behaviour would ever be considered acceptable. "
Considered by who? Again there is someone who has to consider it, thus it is subjective.

If you want to talk about "watered down" objectivity, sure there is objectivity in beauty and morality. But that's not very interesting.

Originally Posted by Ele

Consideration of a fact still happens when dealing with concretes though. The difference is that we can easily come across a definitive, objective answer for concrete things because science works on the natural world. So consideration of the fact isn't relevant here, what's relevant is that we can't use the scientific method in full in the realm of conceptualisations, since conceptualisations don't exist in the natural world.

I still stand by my point that we can investigate the conceptual world and make judgements using what tools we can, logic and reason. It may not be 'objectivity' in the most technical sense, but I don't think that's really important, since it lets us say definitive things like 'torturing and raping a child is immoral' and 'fat people with fucked teeth and open bleeding sores all over their body aren't beautiful'. Things that any sane and reasonable person would agree with. Is it technically objective, nah. Does it matter at all that it's not, nah. I'd argue the distinction is mostly unimportant for any context that isn't within a university philosophy class.