Quite well said, Brian.

There are many objective standards for cooking. Technical ability, hygiene, freshness of produce, for example. All taught in cookery schools. If you wind up in hospital with food poisoning, that you ate a poor meal is a matter of fact, not opinion.

You can use measures if that sort of thing makes you happy. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much would you like an objective measure of pleasure/pain?

You can also use objective measures that are supposedly related to satisfaction or happiness if that sort of thing floats your boat. For instance, we can count how many times you had to reply to me in a thread.

Fortunately, I am not in charge of such things, so I can just wing it.

Generally speaking, if something contains subjective elements it is subjective.

You're the utilitarian. What sense does it make to speak of maximizing happiness if you can't measure it?

It seems enjoyable enough to me to speak of it.

The point I have been trying to make is that the view that moral judgements are subjective contradicts utilitarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

I think I mentioned that I am not a utilitarian when it doesn't suit me. I didn't mean that I am a big old meanie. I meant that I am aware that it has some logical and practical issues and either ignore them or go with another system when it suits me. I think I mentioned something or other about the existence of questions that don't have perfect answers.

The problem with feels not being even remotely objective isn't the particular problem. The problem is whether it (maximizing the sum total of what one imagines to be a good approximation for wellbeing is the morally correct thing) is actually objectively true, which it clearly isn't.

On a more personal level, it works sufficiently for my limited needs. When I consider whether to poke a random stranger in the eye, or give someone half my sandwich, it suffices.

*the stuff of subjective feels

I never liked utilitarianism because I believed in moral rights. That all seems faintly ridiculous now, but the one thing I did like was that it was at least grounded in a reality of pleasure, pain, etc., and now you're trying to take even that away.

Nah. Subjective stuff is the most important and interesting stuff.

Imagine if stamp collecting were objectively enjoyable. Insects would be sad that they couldn't afford stamps.

As with cookery, I doubt we'd agree on what is subjective. But you're probably in the majority, as many people seem to think that whether a random painting by a ten-year old is better than the Sistine Chapel is a matter of personal taste. Ignorance is bliss, so promote ignorance; that's the utilitarian way.

I'm afraid that more people would agree with you. For some reason, people cannot wrap their head around the notion that even if everyone agrees on some matter of taste, that it is still a matter of taste.

Sugar really cannot objectively taste good. Someone (or many someones or even everyone) has to find it good.

It seems that "objective" has been imbued with some strange other ideas that have nothing to do with objectivity. "It isn't REALLY good unless it is objectively good," would be a sentence I wouldn't be surprised to hear, despite it being complete nonsense.

I took a philosophy class one time. I gave up on it when they got to objective-subjective. Something about how sometimes what's objective is subjective and what's subjective is objective. I decided the subject was objectively dumb and I subjectively enjoyed skipping class much more. Amazingly I ended up with an A-. I aced the final with pure BS.


PairTheBoard

There is to a degree some universal agreement about what is enjoyable and what isnt. This is because after all we are all the same animal more or less so its understandable that we will start hating heat above a temperature that is very close to all of us. We will all almost drop a hot spoon/fork that we tried to use to taste something or to move food around if above a certain level .

Obviously fine differences must exist because we are not identical and have followed different paths in life and experience but this doesnt mean that one cannot relate to produce such a high correlation about what is good food and what isnt. I can suggest Greek dishes that will be liked by 90% of people easily.

And Charlie appears from various prior posts to care enough for cooking and quality that i anticipate he cooks well and other people tasting would probably agree because achievement is a matter of effort and caring.

Regarding my food i anticipate that most reasonable people would find it ok and if i put more effort it would be more than ok without being super remarkable. However my mom can cook like few people and she doesnt have to put any effort to make you very happy with the result. Now that is not something i can do because i am tilted with the effort it takes to cook well and i focus on other things but i can appreciate the result and so will any visitor of the home she happens to cook regardless of her age. My mom not only is aware she is up there at the top but at the same time always care to learn new things and never takes herself for granted. She doesnt see herself as a great chef but she is more than that a genuine person that puts care and love in cooking to produce something remarkable.

So yes there is a universality in her success to deliver good food to everyone. It is possible for me to admit she has a higher standard than i do but i can recognize the difference and still i am fine with having lost the chance to celebrate her cooking daily for many many years now. Why? Because i can always imagine it. I have been defined by its standard and its not possible to forget even if you do not taste it currently. This is the definition of love and greatness. It persists in your brain forever. That is how subjectivity can begin because we all have had different exceptional standards. But in the end if all tasted her food i anticipate a great deal of enjoyment by most. It is nearly universal. Spanakopita anyone? Moussaka? Meatballs? Spaghetti? Rice filled tomatoes peppers and zucchini in oven? I will take my chances with all of those being enjoyed by almost all here that are not strictly vegetarians or vegans (i will adjust choice for them).

I don't see how that contradicts me. That many have found it good is objective knowledge, to be fed into the utilitarian market research supercomputer.

Clearly, which probably explains your false equivalence...

Morality is about what is right or wrong. You don't think that it's possible to have a definitive list of what is right or wrong, ok, then without that checklist, how do we improve our morality and work towards always being right in our moral judgments since we can never know whether we're right or wrong?

So you're saying that you had a philosophy about philosophy and you just described it to us? Hmmm, it's so dumb and useless, isn't it. Please, try to have this conversation with me without proving yourself wrong about how dumb philosophy is.

If you want you can start by telling me what you think it is?

The story was more of a sick brag disguised as self deprecating humor. If I had known then what I've picked up since, I could have gotten a hell of a lot more out of practically all my classes in school. However, I do think my post made the point that it's naïve to think objective-subjective is simply binary. I leave it to the forum to ignore, disagree or expand on that opinion.


PairTheBoard

You were the one with concerns about subjectivity. I was pointing out those concerns were, in some ways, unwarranted.

Morality is about good and bad. Some moral theories are about right and wrong.

You also cannot have a definitive list about what is good and bad food. The equivalence stands.

(Ignoring your choice of the word "always" because it is too silly. Also ignoring that you are ignoring emotivism)

Morality - "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour."

So, not really sure what your sentence means.

Part of the reason I don't like your analogy is that I think that if you have to resort to one, you're just failing to make yourself understood. And then we get bogged down in comparisons between the actual subject and your analogy. It doesn't help.

But the part that concerns me is your claim that you can't have a definitive list about what is good and bad, how do you know this?


If we have a definitive list about what is good and bad, we could always be right, or at least, we could know what is right whatever we actually choose to do with that information.

Numero Uno on the Good List:

Beer is Good. This has been repeatedly tested by humans since ~ 5,000 BC. The evidence is overwhelming. I have no idea if this is subjective or objection or on some sliding spectrum or value/moral scale between the two supposed end points.

Good/bad can be applied to right/wrong, but right/wrong doesn't always apply to good/bad.

Also:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Aaron answered.


It wasn't an analogy. It was an example that disproved your earlier point. Either you can improve things that do not have x (the criteria you mentioned) or you cannot. I gave an example where you can, hence x does not preclude improvement.

I don't know anything for sure. For instance, I don't know whether you are a zombie or not.

"Knowing for sure" is an odd hurdle that I've no interest in jumping over. Perhaps you can start a thread about epistemology, if that is something that interests you.

Sure. There are also things we could do if pigs could fly. Given the lack of a definitive list and flying pigs, it doesn't seem important to me.

It is quite normal and commonplace to know something for sure. Perhaps you are working with an odd definition. Philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday.