by jimwalton » Sat Jun 17, 2023 2:27 am
I disagree. Subjectivity doesn't necessarily means it's arbitrary. First of all, we receive all truth through the filter of our humanity. Truth is something we both perceive and appropriate. Does this "subjectivity" (in our appropriation of truth) means there is no such thing as objective truth? Not in the least. It’s quite literally the beginning of it. Our understandings and definitions of goodness are based on millennia of scholarship, morality, philosophy, and real life, across language, culture, history, and even moral interpretations. Through the millennia we have sorted out the trivial, the temporary, and the cultural variations to arrive at a consensus. Our understanding of goodness is no more subjective than our conclusions in science that we arrive at by observation, investigation, and consensus. It's just as objective to speak of God's goodness (or anyone's goodness) as it is to speak of the objectivity of time or the reality of air. Within a certain bandwidth of definition and some variations, we all know what we mean by goodness in a very objective sense. There's nothing arbitrary about it. If it were arbitrary, "goodness" would have no more meaning than "govuhenso." But that's not the case. Language matters, and we have worked hard through the ages to know what we mean by our linguistic symbolism. "Goodness" cannot mean "yellow," "math," "piano," or even "mediocrity" or "evil." Goodness has an objective meaning, and we understand that.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Sat Jun 17, 2023 2:27 am.