The Man In Black wrote:
Then you're not making sense. If objectivity has a value above subjectivity, you can start a moral system from there.
-MiB
Okay, I think I
finally sort of understand what you're saying. And my suspiscions of fucktardity are confirmed. Saying two things are equal in value and saying that two things are equal period are two different things. The phrase "all men are created equal" does not mean that every man equals every single other man in every detail. It means all men are
valued equally. So if you're trying to say I think objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing, then you're wrong.
If you're trying to say that I think objectivity has the same "objective" value as subjectivity, you're also wrong. I don't think "objective" value exists. I think all values
have to be by nature subjective. Saying that it's impossible to compare any two things in objective value is vastly different han saying two things are equal in objective value.
As for whether objectivity is better than subjectivity, it's "better" in the same way that an orgasm is better than a smack upside the head. Or, rather, most people tend to value acting in ways that correspond to "objective" reality in the same way most people tend to value an orgasm. Does everyone like orgasming? Does everyone like the results of paying attention to the objective world? Probably not, but the vast majority, including and most importantly myself, do.
Also, saying that you can start with ONE SINGLE proposition (i.e. that objectivity>subjectivity) and then derive a whole system from it (i.e. an objective system of ethics) is blatantly Cartesian*. I'd like to see you try, honestly, because you'll fail, miserably.
*"Cartesian" is a technical philosophical word for "totally retarded".