standards

[Blake Cretney]

   MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

 > Blake continues:
 >
 > Do you have to explain why I believe that there's a genuine objective
 > absolute best candidate? No you don't. I've already done that.
 > Instead you should try to refute my arguments.
 >
 > I reply:
 >
 > Maybe it's possible to show you that there isn't an objective best
 > candidate. So far I've probably only asserted that there isn't.
 >
Here's a brief summary of the argument as I see it, using an example.
  If we have a cannibal, and a prisoner, then each has a conflicting
desire.  Each will also come with his own opinion of what should be
done, independent of his personal wishes.  This opinion will be the
result of various factors but will be heavily influenced by the opinion
of his culture.  Now, I argue that it might make sense to say that one
side is actually right, or that one outcome really is best.  If you are
to be consistent, you have to argue that statements of that form are
meaningless, and that although we can say that an outcome is better for
a particular side, or considered right by a particular culture, it is
meaningless to say that one side is better in an objective sense, which
is I think what we mean by "absolute".  I will address this issue, but
only after considering a simpler case of objectivity.

If you have the right combination of particles (or whatever it is they
have in physics these days), then you have a cat.  The question of what
constitutes a cat is in some sense objective, leaving aside the issue of
beings that are part way between a cat and something else.  If I have a
sufficiently precise definition of what makes a cat, and I find some
things that fit the definition, it is not really subjective.  It is not
that some things are cats to me or to my culture, they are just cats,
although only by our definition.

If someone else had a very different definition of a cat, for example,
someone speaking a foreign language, I would not consider this as making
the issue subjective.  For example, someone might think that a cat
referred to any light visible in the night sky.  I would not claim that
that definition was wrong, but it would not make any difference to
whether cats are objectively determined.  There are two different
definitions, but each is objective for its own use.

Similarly, if I claim that something is "good" and you claim that it is
"bad", I see two main possibilities.  Perhaps you define good and bad
differently, or perhaps one of us is applying a common definition
incorrectly.  But this does not make the valuation subjective (except in
the loose sense of difficult to ascertain).  For example, if someone
claimed that they knew that such and such was the right thing to do, but
were not sure if they should do it, I would argue that either they are
using a different definition of "right" or "should" than me, because to
me saying that something is the right thing to do, and saying that one
should do it, are synonymous.  Similarly someone who claimed that one
should increase suffering (independent of any other benefit) would have
a different concept of "should" than I have.

So, you might ask, how would I convince someone who thinks they "should"
increase suffering that they are wrong?  But that's the wrong question.
  How they define "should" is only a question of definition.  The real
question is how can someone who is trying to increase suffering be
convinced to stop, independent of how they choose to define such terms
as "right" or "should".  Presumably, one would appeal to their
compassion and their reason.

---
Blake Cretney (http://condorcet.org)