The debate on voluntary euthanasia...

[2ndRateMind]

... seems to hinge on this question:

Is a life filled with unbearable suffering better than no life at all?

If it is, then we may need to use the law to limit the freedom of individuals (and with the assistance of their doctors, if necessary) to end their lives as they see fit.

If it isn't, then there is no place for the law in this dreadful decision, beyond safeguarding the vulnerable.

So, what does the forum advise?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

You are being equivocal. 'A quality' is an attribute or property. 'The quality' is a degree of merit or value. Whether or not we like an object's properties is not the same as an object's merit. We should not confuse the two.

So what exactly does the statement "I like the taste of this pizza" mean? Is it not a comment on the merit of a pizza?

Not necessarily. Primarily, it is a comment on your (subjective) attitude to the (objective) quality of the pizza.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 21 by 2ndRateMind]

Right, then what is the merit of a pizza, if not your (subjective) attitude to it?

Pizza A is chewy, is that a merit of that pizza?
Pizza B is crispy, is that a merit of that pizza?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 21 by 2ndRateMind]

Right, then what is the merit of a pizza, if not your (subjective) attitude to it?

Pizza A is chewy, is that a merit of that pizza?
Pizza B is crispy, is that a merit of that pizza?

No, they are both properties of the pizza. You are still confusing 'a quality' with 'the quality'. As for 'the quality', that might well involve a whole number of considerations of properties, such as organic ingredients, value for money, freshness of bake, freedom from allergens, low air-mile toppings, etc, as well as whether the pizza is chewy or crispy, that may have little or nothing to do with whether you as an individual actually like the pizza or not. Quality is a multi-faceted consideration which transcends mere subjective approval.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

Right, then what is the merit of a pizza, if not your (subjective) attitude to it?

Pizza A is chewy, is that a merit of that pizza?
Pizza B is crispy, is that a merit of that pizza?

No, they are both properties of the pizza. You are still confusing 'a quality' with 'the quality'.

I asked you what is the merit of a pizza, telling me what isn't the merit of a pizza, doesn't answer that question. What on earth do you mean by the quality of a pizza, if not the merit of a pizza?!

As for 'the quality', that might well involve a whole number of considerations of properties, such as organic ingredients, value for money, freshness of bake, freedom from allergens, low air-mile toppings, etc, as well as whether the pizza is chewy or crispy, that may have little or nothing to do with whether you as an individual actually like the pizza or not. Quality is a multi-faceted consideration which transcends mere subjective approval.

If you acknowledge such as thing as subjective approval, then why the apparent rejection of subjectivism? I found conversation with you very odd, you make simple statement that sounds superficially like objectivism, but when I drill down on what you mean, you explain it like a subjectivist.

[2ndRateMind]

If you acknowledge such as thing as subjective approval, then why the apparent rejection of subjectivism? I found conversation with you very odd, you make simple statement that sounds superficially like objectivism, but when I drill down on what you mean, you explain it like a subjectivist.

It's really quite simple.

I do not deny that we all have subjective opinions.

I just contend that some of these opinions are more accurate than others, in respect of an objective reality.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[imhereforyou]

You are being equivocal. 'A quality' is an attribute or property. 'The quality' is a degree of merit or value. Whether or not we like an object's properties is not the same as an object's merit. We should not confuse the two.

So what exactly does the statement "I like the taste of this pizza" mean? Is it not a comment on the merit of a pizza?

Maybe if everyone also like the pizza. If not, seems it would be more of a personal decision and not much, if anything, to do with the merit of the pizza.

[Bust Nak]

It's really quite simple.

I do not deny that we all have subjective opinions.

I just contend that some of these opinions are more accurate than others, in respect of an objective reality.

That much is obvious, both subjectivists and objectivist would say the same: in some people's opinion the Earth is flat, they are simply incorrect, less accurate than those opinion that says the Earth is a ball. What still isn't clear is surround opinions to do with taste, be it food or music or beauty.

Are such opinion that dependent solely on the views of individuals? In your opinion olives are fine but in your brother's opinion olives taste bad. Does correctness / accuracy apply here?

An food taste objectivist would say yes, one of you is correct and the other incorrect; a subjectivist would say no correctness does not apply.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 27 by Bust Nak]

Not at all. It seems that my brother carries a gene that makes it seem, to him, that olives taste horribly metallic. I do not. He is not incorrect to dislike this horrible taste; I am not incorrect because olives seem to me to have a dry, subtle flavour I very much enjoy.

You could say that olives have the property of being liked by me, and disliked by my brother, due to their chemical composition and our differing genetic makeup, as expressed by the sensitivity of our taste receptors. Whatever, this property is quite objective, even if he will say, as shorthand: 'I hate olives' and I will say, as shorthand: 'I love olives'.

Particularly when they are dressed in virgin olive oil, and white wine vinegar, and marinated overnight with crushed garlic, chopped fresh herbs, and a little chilli powder to add an edge of bite. mmmm!

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

It's really quite simple.

I do not deny that we all have subjective opinions.

I just contend that some of these opinions are more accurate than others, in respect of an objective reality.

That much is obvious, both subjectivists and objectivist would say the same

Ah, but no, they wouldn't. An objectivist can perfectly consistently and coherently posit an objective reality, that X is good, even if not everyone agrees that X is good.

A subjectivist can't; for him or her, whether or not X is good is just a matter of opinion, and the reason opinions differ is that there is no objective reality in respect of ethics or aesthetics. So the accuracy of a moral or aesthetic opinion is not a meaningful concept.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Aetixintro]

It's really quite simple.

I do not deny that we all have subjective opinions.

I just contend that some of these opinions are more accurate than others, in respect of an objective reality.

That much is obvious, both subjectivists and objectivist would say the same

Ah, but no, they wouldn't. An objectivist can perfectly consistently and coherently posit an objective reality, that X is good, even if not everyone agrees that X is good.

A subjectivist can't; for him or her, whether or not X is good is just a matter of opinion, and the reason opinions differ is that there is no objective reality in respect of ethics or aesthetics. So the accuracy of a moral or aesthetic opinion is not a meaningful concept.

Best wishes, 2RM.

No, 2RM, I don't agree. The objective reality is there for sure, with objective ethics (or morality) and aesthetics (please, see evaluation of arts). The reason why opinions differ is that one party has the intelligence while the other party does NOT.