Worldtraveller

You're right, I was, mostly to make a point. I'm not really a 'subjectivist', and I'm certainly not an objectivist.

I do think there is 'reality' that exists regardless of whether we percieve it or not, quantum effects notwithstanding. I was really just trying to make an analogy with ice cream in the way most people apply objectivity arguments to morals.

I agree that:
...in general. But most people apply the exception (heh) to this when they talk about morals, and specifically, the whole point of laws is to do just that.
This I disagree with. I think something can have real meaning, and still be subjective. As a matter of fact, that's what makes this kind of discussion interesting. Just because I like squid ice cream and you don't, doesn't mean that squid ice cream doesn't have special meaning to me.
But how objective is something if it depends on context? Not saying something can't be objective based on context, but it seems fuzzy at best to say so. 2+2=4 is objective, and seems like it is context independant, but I'm not sure you could reduce any moral statement to that same level of simplicity.

I don't want to argue semantics, but maybe that's what I'm doing. To me, something is subjective if everyone agrees that it is 'real', assuming knowledge of such reality is indeed even possible.

It's like the existence of god(s). I'm strong atheist wrt to any I have heard about, since they are logically impossible, or simply extraneous exlpanations for natural phenomena. But I remain agnistic/weak athiest wrt to any gods existing. Personally, after watching {i}The Daily Show[/i] regularly, I'm coming to believe there is a god.....of irony.

But I highly doubt something like that could ever be objectively proven. Whereas anyone that has learned the basic concepts of numbers can agree that 2+2=4.
I agree, we have to figure these things out, and it's not a simple solution. One of the biggest beefs I have with religion is that they propose simple, and simplistic, solutions to complex problems that don't begin to address the issue.

Cheers,
Lane

Reign_Cryogen

That's a very good point. I think the problem is that, when dealing with a text-based medium, we got a lot of spare debate time to pick things apart at the molecular level - so we can quibble the fine points that aren't even worth quibbling.

You can't say it isn't fun every now and then to be at least a little pedantic just to see the other guy squirm.

Beyond the schadenfreud potential, you're absolutely right.. IMO. However, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to at least be able to file things down to the razor edge needed to satisfy a hardball subjectivist's needs in BBS discourse. If nothing else, the sophistic nonsense we all ramble on about here and insist on picking apart at every turn makes us think our own ideas out very carefully.

Well, as careful as one is able.

fast

and willing