Principles

[fast]

I see, and I think that's where we disagree. To me "tom is a liar" is subjective, as is any label that I apply. Tom is tall, Tom is skinny, Tom is a murderer (in that he routinely kills spiders), Tom is a liar. That tom has lied at least once in the past is objective. But where I consider him to be a liar you may not.

In point of fact, that I apply that label 'liar' to Tom after hearing him lie once says more about me than it does Tom.

aa

Tom is tall isn't subjective. It's relative.

Let's say Tom is 6'2". That is tall (objectively so) compared to average height. We can objectively compare the two and come to a definitive answer. Lisa says he's short compared to most people on the basketball team. So, is he tall or short? Well, compared to what? Once we know what's missing in the question, we can answer the question that is objective, not subjective. I don't think the statement is subjective. It's not like preferred ice cream flavors. "Tom is tall to me" is just an objective statement in desguise. Maybe Margarie is unusually short and doesn't see many tall people and says "he's tall to me." That might be subjective.

Is the truth subject dependent? If so, that's one thing. If not, that's something else entirely.
Tom is taller than Joe to me doesn't make sense, and whatever is missing (relatively) doesn't make it therefore subjective, just unexplicitly relative.

This is a distinction without a difference. If 'Tom is tall' is unexplicitly relative then so is 'Tom is a liar'.

One cannot obtain the objective truth of either statement without further context.

aa

But for different reasons.

First, we have to make the left vs right distinction. Subjective versus objective

If the truth is subject-dependent, then it's subjective. If not, it's objective.
The "to me" qualification makes the truth of the claim subjective.

For example, "to me, chocolate tastes better than vanilla." The truth requires comparing the taste that person has for chocolate with the taste that person has with vanilla. The truth requires the subject. No subject, no truth. It's subject dependent.

Now, on the objective front, consider the following:
"tom is tall." That's not a subjective claim. Height can be measured without the subject who uttered the claim. It's relative, but it's not subjective. We cannot ascertain the objective truth until we know what height he's compared to, but the problem of ascertaining the objective truth does not make the truth subjective.

"Tom is a liar." We can determine whether one has lied without the person who makes the claim that he has lied. The problem of determining whether he is a liar, moreover, does not require the subjects reasons for thinking what he or she does; rather, we just need the claim to be explicit so we know just what was actually meant: a) generally, he lies or b) he has lied at least once. So, the only dependency we have on determining the truth of the claim is in actually disambiguating the claim. Once we know what was meant, we can objectively find an answer without dependence on the subject.

 

[fast]

Mary is 14 years old: Objective.

Parents see Mary as a child: subjective.

Mary sees herself as an adult: subjective.

Principles are also subjective.

If the claim is, "Mary is an adult," must we know what her parents think to determine whether Mary is an adult? I'm thinking no.

 

[ruby sparks]

If Tom lied on Monday but told the truth on Tuesday, which is he, a liar or a truth-teller? He has objectively (let's assume) been both.

Has Tom ever lied? (Objective)

Is Tom a liar? (in order to gain objectivity, it depends if you mean has he ever lied, does he rarely or sometimes lie, does he generally or often lie or does he always lie).

 

[ruby sparks]

Skews the overall objective accuracy? That's a hard pill to swallow.

Do you think so? It sort of feels ok to me.

 

[rousseau]

If Tom lied on Monday but told the truth on Tuesday, which is he, a liar or a truth-teller? He has objectively (let's assume) been both.

Has Tom ever lied? (Objective)

Is Tom a liar? (in order to gain objectivity, it depends if you mean has he ever lied, does he rarely or sometimes lie, does he generally or often lie or does he always lie).

It depends on your definition of what a liar is.

Morality is subjective and arbitrary. There are no absolute moral rules, there are just people meeting (or not meeting) the criteria that other people set.

More generally, you can do anything you want, you just have to be willing to accept the consequences of doing what you want. One can lie if doing so has no consequences, but if lying has serious consequences then it becomes a problem.

 

[fast]

If Tom lied on Monday but told the truth on Tuesday, which is he, a liar or a truth-teller? He has objectively (let's assume) been both.

Has Tom ever lied? (Objective)

Is Tom a liar? (in order to gain objectivity, it depends if you mean has he ever lied, does he rarely or sometimes lie, does he generally or often lie or does he always lie).

Answering the question "is Tom a liar?" is a function of the truth value of the claim, "Tom is a liar."

The answer does not depend on what the person asking the question thinks about the issue. It only depends on what was meant by the question. Your comment "in order to gain objectivity" is squirrley. It's already an objective issue, but yes, we don't have an objective answer since we don't know what was meant, but not knowing what was meant doesn't mean the answer is subjective.

 

[fast]

If Tom lied on Monday but told the truth on Tuesday, which is he, a liar or a truth-teller? He has objectively (let's assume) been both.

Has Tom ever lied? (Objective)

Is Tom a liar? (in order to gain objectivity, it depends if you mean has he ever lied, does he rarely or sometimes lie, does he generally or often lie or does he always lie).

It depends on your definition of what a liar is.

Not really.

The lexical meaning of words are a function of collective usage, not individual usage.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a cat have? Four. It doesn't matter what you call a tail. It's still not a leg.

It doesn't matter what his definition of what the word liar is. Whatever his stipulative definition is, it won't change what a liar is.

 

[rousseau]

If Tom lied on Monday but told the truth on Tuesday, which is he, a liar or a truth-teller? He has objectively (let's assume) been both.

Has Tom ever lied? (Objective)

Is Tom a liar? (in order to gain objectivity, it depends if you mean has he ever lied, does he rarely or sometimes lie, does he generally or often lie or does he always lie).

It depends on your definition of what a liar is.

Not really.

The lexical meaning of words are a function of collective usage, not individual usage.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a cat have? Four. It doesn't matter what you call a tail. It's still not a leg.

It doesn't matter what his definition of what the word liar is. Whatever his stipulative definition is, it won't change what a liar is.

It will change to the person who is judging whether or not you are a liar, which is what matters.

Objectively you are a liar according to the strict definition, but nobody is using the strict definition to determine how to respond to you.

 

[fast]

Not really.

The lexical meaning of words are a function of collective usage, not individual usage.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a cat have? Four. It doesn't matter what you call a tail. It's still not a leg.

It doesn't matter what his definition of what the word liar is. Whatever his stipulative definition is, it won't change what a liar is.

It will change to the person who is judging whether or not you are a liar, which is what matters.

Objectively you are a liar according to the strict definition, but nobody is using the strict definition to determine how to respond to you.

It's customary to use single quotes when using a word in an unusual or odd manner. So, while a cat has five 'legs', a cat still has but four legs. If we want to know what the lexical meaning of the word "liar" is, we can consult an authoritative source like the American English Dictionary. If we want to know what Bob means by 'liar', we can ask Bob, and when we learn from Bob that 'liar' means pink unicorns, we'll know that it has little resemblance to what "liar" really means.

 

[ruby sparks]

If Tom lied on Monday but told the truth on Tuesday, which is he, a liar or a truth-teller? He has objectively (let's assume) been both.

Has Tom ever lied? (Objective)

Is Tom a liar? (in order to gain objectivity, it depends if you mean has he ever lied, does he rarely or sometimes lie, does he generally or often lie or does he always lie).

Answering the question "is Tom a liar?" is a function of the truth value of the claim, "Tom is a liar."

The answer does not depend on what the person asking the question thinks about the issue. It only depends on what was meant by the question. Your comment "in order to gain objectivity" is squirrley. It's already an objective issue, but yes, we don't have an objective answer since we don't know what was meant, but not knowing what was meant doesn't mean the answer is subjective.

Ah well, you see, I had been considering the issue of labels and whether the answer to 'is Tom a liar' was essentially a function of how an individual might or might not apply a label, thereby rendering the answer more subjective than objective.

So setting that aside I agree with what you just said above.

 

[ruby sparks]

If we want to know what the lexical meaning of the word "liar" is, we can consult an authoritative source like the American English Dictionary. If we want to know what Bob means by 'liar', we can ask Bob, and when we learn from Bob that 'liar' means pink unicorns, we'll know that it has little resemblance to what "liar" really means.

(my bold)

You went from 'lexical meaning' to 'really means'.......as if.....you were looking for objective reality in a dictionary. Which I think you will find, but only of a particular sort (eg it is objectively true that there is a commonly accepted meaning for the word liar) but isn't it just a subjective-objectivity at bottom, in that it's a collection of subjectivities that form a general agreement?

 

[fast]

If we want to know what the lexical meaning of the word "liar" is, we can consult an authoritative source like the American English Dictionary. If we want to know what Bob means by 'liar', we can ask Bob, and when we learn from Bob that 'liar' means pink unicorns, we'll know that it has little resemblance to what "liar" really means.

(my bold)

You went from 'lexical meaning' to 'really means'.......as if.....you were looking for objective reality in a dictionary. Which I think you will find, but only of a particular sort (eg it is objectively true that there is a commonly accepted meaning for the word liar) but isn't it just a subjective-objectivity at bottom, in that it's a collection of subjectivities that form a general agreement?

Lexical meaning is the collective usage of words as used by fluent speakers of a language. That it's a collective usage and not an individual usage makes all the difference in the world. The meaning of (oh say) "liar," therefore, is not dependent on any one subject.

Consider the spelling of the word. If you want to know the truth about how to spell the word, either consult a dictionary or learn it from someone that'll teach it exactly as depicted in the dictionary. The truth is an objective truth.

It might not be an absolute truth, as if to say it might not stand the test of time, but spellings, like meaning, can evolve over time.

It is not subjective.

 

[fast]

If Tom lied on Monday but told the truth on Tuesday, which is he, a liar or a truth-teller? He has objectively (let's assume) been both.

Has Tom ever lied? (Objective)

Is Tom a liar? (in order to gain objectivity, it depends if you mean has he ever lied, does he rarely or sometimes lie, does he generally or often lie or does he always lie).

Answering the question "is Tom a liar?" is a function of the truth value of the claim, "Tom is a liar."

The answer does not depend on what the person asking the question thinks about the issue. It only depends on what was meant by the question. Your comment "in order to gain objectivity" is squirrley. It's already an objective issue, but yes, we don't have an objective answer since we don't know what was meant, but not knowing what was meant doesn't mean the answer is subjective.

Ah well, you see, I had been considering the issue of labels and whether the answer to 'is Tom a liar' was essentially a function of how an individual might or might not apply a label, thereby rendering the answer more subjective than objective.

So setting that aside I agree with what you just said above.

But cannot labels be misapplied? I am a Republican, but then again, I'm also a liar, so good luck with that one.

 

[humbleman]

Mary is 14 years old: Objective.

Parents see Mary as a child: subjective.

Mary sees herself as an adult: subjective.

Principles are also subjective.

If the claim is, "Mary is an adult," must we know what her parents think to determine whether Mary is an adult? I'm thinking no.

Read what you just said: "Parents think".

Thinking is subjective.

By culture, there are different ranges about defining people according to their age and thoughts.

Regardless of education level, some cultures consider the 14 years old daughter as an adult in order to get married and have children.

In other cultures, an adult is a person who reaches 18 or 21 years of age. However, people with mental disabilities can be an exception if their behavior is similar to a 8 years old child, as an example.

Principles are subjected to the culture of each person, family, country or region of the world.

Objective might b e accepted differently. A person with cancer is ruled as such by most people, and this is an objective and detected disease. However, by some religious people this disease will represent the presence of a bad spirit inside the victims, and will require a treatment with rituals and prayers. The objective side has been accepted anyway, the cause and treatment is delivered differently.

_____________________________________________

Tom is not a liar by daily inclination of never telling the truth, but, at that specific moment when Tom lies, at that specific moment he is a liar. When he talk in other moments, he says the truth.

Then, calling him a liar will be conditioned to that one time when he said a lie, and this will follow him wherever he goes every time someone reminds him about that lie, and because that specific lie, Tom will be called a liar.

This is common with wives against husbands: women become hysterical when they found that their husbands have lied to them, and after that, women become historical reminding them from time to time about their lie; and because "that lie", in front of these women their husbands will be "liars" forever, no matter what.

So, your point is challenged by multiple aspects.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

This is a distinction without a difference. If 'Tom is tall' is unexplicitly relative then so is 'Tom is a liar'.

One cannot obtain the objective truth of either statement without further context.

aa

But for different reasons.

First, we have to make the left vs right distinction. Subjective versus objective

If the truth is subject-dependent, then it's subjective. If not, it's objective.
The "to me" qualification makes the truth of the claim subjective.

For example, "to me, chocolate tastes better than vanilla." The truth requires comparing the taste that person has for chocolate with the taste that person has with vanilla. The truth requires the subject. No subject, no truth. It's subject dependent.

Now, on the objective front, consider the following:
"tom is tall." That's not a subjective claim. Height can be measured without the subject who uttered the claim. It's relative, but it's not subjective. We cannot ascertain the objective truth until we know what height he's compared to, but the problem of ascertaining the objective truth does not make the truth subjective.

"Tom is a liar." We can determine whether one has lied without the person who makes the claim that he has lied. The problem of determining whether he is a liar, moreover, does not require the subjects reasons for thinking what he or she does; rather, we just need the claim to be explicit so we know just what was actually meant: a) generally, he lies or b) he has lied at least once. So, the only dependency we have on determining the truth of the claim is in actually disambiguating the claim. Once we know what was meant, we can objectively find an answer without dependence on the subject.

Tom is tall - subject to certain criteria. That is subjective.
'Tom is taller than average' is objective.
'Tom is 6' 2" is objective.

Whether or not I think Tom is tall has absolutely no objectivity in it and we are free to disagree over that fact. Just because I don't utter the words 'to me' doesn't mean they aren't implied every time I proffer an opinion.

The same is true of 'Tom is a liar'

'Tom has lied once' is objective
'Virtually every word out of Tom's mouth is a lie' could be objective (if it were verifiable).

Calling someone a liar is as subjective as calling them stupid. They are labels subject to your own personal criteria of what constitutes 'a liar' and 'stupid'. If you decide someone has to lie 3 times and then they ought to be called a liar, why should anyone else hold to that standard?

aa

 

[fast]

Mary is 14 years old: Objective.

Parents see Mary as a child: subjective.

Mary sees herself as an adult: subjective.

Principles are also subjective.

If the claim is, "Mary is an adult," must we know what her parents think to determine whether Mary is an adult? I'm thinking no.

Read what you just said: "Parents think".

Thinking is subjective.

By culture, there are different ranges about defining people according to their age and thoughts.

Regardless of education level, some cultures consider the 14 years old daughter as an adult in order to get married and have children.

In other cultures, an adult is a person who reaches 18 or 21 years of age. However, people with mental disabilities can be an exception if their behavior is similar to a 8 years old child, as an example.

Principles are subjected to the culture of each person, family, country or region of the world.

Objective might b e accepted differently. A person with cancer is ruled as such by most people, and this is an objective and detected disease. However, by some religious people this disease will represent the presence of a bad spirit inside the victims, and will require a treatment with rituals and prayers. The objective side has been accepted anyway, the cause and treatment is delivered differently.

_____________________________________________

Tom is not a liar by daily inclination of never telling the truth, but, at that specific moment when Tom lies, at that specific moment he is a liar. When he talk in other moments, he says the truth.

Then, calling him a liar will be conditioned to that one time when he said a lie, and this will follow him wherever he goes every time someone reminds him about that lie, and because that specific lie, Tom will be called a liar.

This is common with wives against husbands: women become hysterical when they found that their husbands have lied to them, and after that, women become historical reminding them from time to time about their lie; and because "that lie", in front of these women their husbands will be "liars" forever, no matter what.

So, your point is challenged by multiple aspects.

I only asked a rhetorical question.

"Bob thinks Andy is 9 feet tall" has a truth value independent of "Andy is 9 feet tall."

If bob says "I think Andy is 9 feet tall", the truth of that statement depends not on the height of Andy but rather on what Bob thinks. If Bob says "Andy is 9 feet tall," then the truth value of that statement has nothing to do with what Bob thinks but instead the height of Andy.

If people in a culture in fact collectively consider a 14yo an adult, we have to ask ourselves, "does that make it so?" If it does, we have a baseline for an objective (not absolute) truth. So, if someone in that culture says a 13yo is an adult, we can objectively demonstrate that false by showing the deviation from the actual objective truth.

If, on the other hand, it doesn't make it so, then the objective truth will be ascertained not when they're considered an adult but rather when they're an adult. For instance, suppose the culture is an anomaly and the rest of the world uses scientific reasoning to reach a consensus that reaching the age of 18 is an adult and is codified in law that way. In that case, considerations become moot and the objective truth will be in relation to what's codified.

People are too quick to claim subjectivity, and when relativity and absolutism gets thrown into mix, they're all too quick to claim subjectivism.

 

[fast]

Tom is tall - subject to certain criteria. That is subjective.

Nice try. Clever even. But no. That don't fly. You have equivocated between two different senses of "subjective."

Even the truth that Tom is taller than average is subjective in the sense the truth is subject to the real world. The way we have been using "subjective" is that the truth is dependent on an agent, a person, a subject. The idea of "subject to" is far different than the idea of "subject dependent."

That being said, a truth that is subjective is 'subject to', but it's limited to cases where it's 'subject to' a subject (person).

How many would of picked up on that one! Stop making me think, damn it.

 

[abaddon]

What I'm arguing against is the notion that because the why for the utterance is subjective has no bearing on the truth of the claim. It's an objective claim...

What I've arrived at are two different objective claims:

Tom is generally a liar vs Tom has at least once lied.

The trick is figuring out which one accords with "Tom is a liar." I say the first.

I would agree that it being subjective doesn't affect its truth. You go on arguing for objectivity but it's the when and why of the utterance that matters.

In your view, "generally" is worse than "once". But consider these alternate contexts:

Tom is generally a liar vs Tom tells one lie but it's a doozy that's so hurtful he's lost people's trust.

And this one:

Tom is generally a fibber of tiny lies of no consequence vs Tom has at least once lied.

In the former scenario people will regard him a liar either way.

In the latter scenario they might withhold "liar" either way.

So "generally is worse than once" is one standard among a few. You have not established a single all-encompassing rule about it because it's context-dependent. The context is the persons affected by Tom's lies -- it's "intersubjective". Which is why some independent observers can verify "yes, Mary has good reason to say Tom is a liar". But those who know Tom but emphasize his other traits over his lying will shrug and say "I like Tom, he's a nice guy". He's objectively a liar but when people choose to apply the label is subjective. Whether Tom's really a liar isn't so much the problem. It's favoring one context over alternative ones, as you're doing, that must be justified.

What's the point in looking for an objective rule to apply anyway? Does it exonerate Tom of transgressions and affirm he's a man of principles if lying is not a general trait of Tom's? His exoneration doesn't need an objective rule. The intersubjective conventions you've appealed to are enough.

 

[ruby sparks]

But cannot labels be misapplied? I am a Republican, but then again, I'm also a liar, so good luck with that one.

I cannot help but say, 'exactly'.

 

[ruby sparks]

If we want to know what the lexical meaning of the word "liar" is, we can consult an authoritative source like the American English Dictionary. If we want to know what Bob means by 'liar', we can ask Bob, and when we learn from Bob that 'liar' means pink unicorns, we'll know that it has little resemblance to what "liar" really means.

(my bold)

You went from 'lexical meaning' to 'really means'.......as if.....you were looking for objective reality in a dictionary. Which I think you will find, but only of a particular sort (eg it is objectively true that there is a commonly accepted meaning for the word liar) but isn't it just a subjective-objectivity at bottom, in that it's a collection of subjectivities that form a general agreement?

Lexical meaning is the collective usage of words as used by fluent speakers of a language. That it's a collective usage and not an individual usage makes all the difference in the world. The meaning of (oh say) "liar," therefore, is not dependent on any one subject.

Consider the spelling of the word. If you want to know the truth about how to spell the word, either consult a dictionary or learn it from someone that'll teach it exactly as depicted in the dictionary. The truth is an objective truth.

It might not be an absolute truth, as if to say it might not stand the test of time, but spellings, like meaning, can evolve over time.

It is not subjective.

Ok. But what definition of 'subjective' are we using?

By 'subjective', I personally have been including multiples of individual subjectivity.

As such, for me, a collection of subjectives does not necessarily cross over to being objective.

There again, what definition of 'objective' are we using?

I can think of ways of defining subjective such that it is related to an individual and ways of defining objective such that it only needs to be more than an individual subjectivity........in which case you would be right.

Except that your starting points are arguably questionable.

My definition of objective would be (from wiki): "A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject."

A consensus (such as might for some words be found in a dictionary) would not therefore readily qualify as objective.