You had me intrigued, but the turn felt like sleight of hand. “Can we apply objectivity to questions about value?” is an entirely different question than the titular one.
Instead of bringing our thoughts in accord with an external reality, we try to bring an external view into the determination of what we value…
If objectivity means anything here, it will mean that when we detach from our individual perspective and the values that seem acceptable from within it, we can sometimes arrive at new conclusions about how to live, rejecting some values we previously held as false appearances.
Why shouldn’t that unloading of individual perspective also remove the pre-loading of scientism that this logical turn is based on? Even accepting that turn, don’t we just have individuals trying to be more objective in their still relativistic value judgements, rather than objective values? Isn’t individual consciousness an inconstant space for these things to inhabit? If these things only exist inside of consciousness, what does an “external view” even mean? Unless you mean merely imagining someone else’s viewpoint?
It seems like you’ve actually said:
- Objective values seem to exist.
- Objective values don’t actually exist because “Science.”
- We can still be “objective” as we evaluate value propositions.
I understand that having no objective values is existentially problematic, and persons trying to be more “impersonal,” and “objective” will probably help take the venom out of many disagreements. However, it is telling that the materialist assumptions force you to redefine “objective.” What basis does the result provide for any of those value judgments being actually true? If we remove the layer of materialist epistemology, then objective values actually existing (almost like entities) is less of a problem. In fact it’s a common line of reasoning for the theist:
- Objective values cannot exist, unless God exists (value-giver)
- Objective values do exist.
- Therefore, God exists.
I’m sure most of your readers will disagree two or three of those, but in reverse it’s at least a coherent answer to, “How Can There Be Truths About How To Live In The First Place?”