It seems to me that this subjective/objective difference can be somewhat dissolved by noticing (or, if you like, postulating) that “Is that play interesting?” is a different question when asked of Alice than when asked of Bob. The real question is, probably, in one case “Is that play interesting to Alice?” and in the other case “Is that play interesting to Bob?”.
I don’t see why that would count as a dissolution. The subjective is defined as varying
with individuals and the objective is defined as not so varying. All that your restatements as ”..”to Alice”, ”..to Bob” do is make that dependence explicit.
Perhaps the sentences usually called “subjective4 questions” would be those containing such ambiguous words as “interesting” or “sexy”,
These words look ambiguous if you expect them to have a single value. They
can be unambiguous if they have well defined values for different people. Subjective-ness isn’t ambiguity.
I guess I just don’t think it’s interesting or in any way special that there are questions that are usually asked by including non-verbal information, or that there are words that refer to “the recipient of this message”.
Wrt “ambiguity” all I mean is that you don’t know what the speaker intended the word to refer to until you know who they were talking to. Steve said “Is that play interesting?” to Alice, implying he wants to know whether Alice found the play interesting. Responding with Bob’s opinion of the play would be unhelpful, which is why you need the context. Maybe “ambiguous” isn’t the best word for that. Whatever.
I guess I just don’t think it’s interesting or in any way special that there are questions that are usually asked by including non-verbal information, or that there are words that refer to “the recipient of this message”.
That would be OK if a) there were a clear distinction between the two categories and/or b) nothing much rode on the distinction.
But neither is the case wrt morallity. a) We don’t have a “usual” practices with regard to moral language. Committed objectivists speak one way, subjectivists another, and many others are undecided b) it is hard to coneive of anything more important than morality—and the two ways of speaking mean something different. Alice can’t wish Bob to be punished just for doing something that’s wrong-for-Alice.
I don’t see why that would count as a dissolution. The subjective is defined as varying with individuals and the objective is defined as not so varying. All that your restatements as ”..”to Alice”, ”..to Bob” do is make that dependence explicit.
These words look ambiguous if you expect them to have a single value. They can be unambiguous if they have well defined values for different people. Subjective-ness isn’t ambiguity.
I guess I just don’t think it’s interesting or in any way special that there are questions that are usually asked by including non-verbal information, or that there are words that refer to “the recipient of this message”.
Wrt “ambiguity” all I mean is that you don’t know what the speaker intended the word to refer to until you know who they were talking to. Steve said “Is that play interesting?” to Alice, implying he wants to know whether Alice found the play interesting. Responding with Bob’s opinion of the play would be unhelpful, which is why you need the context. Maybe “ambiguous” isn’t the best word for that. Whatever.
That would be OK if a) there were a clear distinction between the two categories and/or b) nothing much rode on the distinction.
But neither is the case wrt morallity. a) We don’t have a “usual” practices with regard to moral language. Committed objectivists speak one way, subjectivists another, and many others are undecided b) it is hard to coneive of anything more important than morality—and the two ways of speaking mean something different. Alice can’t wish Bob to be punished just for doing something that’s wrong-for-Alice.