In short, you can’t deviate from a common jargon and also complain that people are misunderstanding you
Yes I can—if 1) I use the word in it’s basic common sense way, and then, as a bonus in case people are confusing the common sense usage with some other technical meaning, 2) I specifically say “I’m not intimately familiar with the technical jargon, so here is what I mean by this”, and then I explain specifically what I mean.
Hank, I’m sorry—I was a little too harsh. My general difficulty is that I don’t think you endorse what Jack calleduniversal relativism. If you don’t, then
I addressed this previously, explaining that I am using ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ in the common sense way of ‘mind-independent’ or ‘mind-dependent’
and
I don’t understand why people insist on equating ‘objective morality’ with something magically universal.
don’t go well together.
It is the case that objective != universal, but objective things tend to cause universality. If you have a reason why universality isn’t caused by objective fact in this case, you should state it.
Yes I can—if 1) I use the word in it’s basic common sense way, and then, as a bonus in case people are confusing the common sense usage with some other technical meaning, 2) I specifically say “I’m not intimately familiar with the technical jargon, so here is what I mean by this”, and then I explain specifically what I mean.
Hank, I’m sorry—I was a little too harsh. My general difficulty is that I don’t think you endorse what Jack called universal relativism. If you don’t, then
and
don’t go well together.
It is the case that objective != universal, but objective things tend to cause universality. If you have a reason why universality isn’t caused by objective fact in this case, you should state it.