RE:Objective vs Subjective Morality PART I (the importance of functional definitions)

This is going to be a multi parter

This post is in response to a post made by Steven Novella at Neurologica Blog entitled 'Objective vs Subject Morality'

Steven Novella is one of my long time heroes. The work that his colleagues and he at  The Skeptic's guide to the Universe has done is beyond compare. I have nothing but love and respect for the man, and the work he does.

Writing a blog post on his coat tails is really an act of hubris on my part, and done more for my own edification more than anything else.

So here goes:

On a recent blog post Steven Novella explains why he thinks objective morality is not only unworkable, it’s a fiction.

Steven is kind enough to define morality for us. He defines it as "a code of behavior that aspires to some goal that is perceived as good."

Unfortunately he has not defined what he considers to be the definition of 'objective' and 'subjective'. And here is the reason this blog post will have to be a multi parter.

sub·jec·tive

  [suh b-jek-tiv]  Show IPA

adjective

1.

existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposedto objective ).

2.

pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

3.

placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

4.

Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from athing in itself.

5.

relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universalexperience.

ob·jec·tive

  [uh b-jek-tiv]  Show IPA

[...]

adjective

4.

being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.

5.

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: anobjective opinion.

6.

intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as aperson or a book.

7.

being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to thethinking subject ( opposed to subjective ).

8.

of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of anobject; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

If you take the time to read these definitions, and then read Steven's definition, and then read the dictionary.com definitions a couple of times, you may come across the same problem that I have.

When Steven defines morality as part of a perception, it is de facto subjective, seeing as how objectivity deals with pure factuality as OPPOSED to your own thoughts (read: perceptions) and feelings.

I'm sorry Steven, but it would appear to me that the rest of your post is a lot of long-winded hand waving as you have clearly already tipped the game in your favor by setting the definitions to your personal world view.

If things which are subjective are non-facts which are part of perception, and morality is a code to achieve perceived goods, then ipso facto these perceived goods are subjective therefor the code itself becomes based upon subjectivity, making the whole mess complex, with some subjective aspects and some objective aspects.

There is a very real, very important, and very long conversation to be had on whether or not morality is objective or subjective; but that conversation needs to start in a place where definitions are not rigged.