Mathematics is logical and objective.
Yes, it is.
My preference for one color over another is subjective--and not logical.
No, I do not think you can generalize this. It may be subjective, and not logical. Or it may be subjective and logical. It certainly is subjective, but it's also certainly possible to have a logical reason for it being so.
Why do you think something cannot be subjective, yet still have a logical reason to be that way?
I'll expand on the previous example I already stole from earlier in this thread.
quote:
If we value self-preservation, then "Thou shall not murder" is a moral value we should uphold.
Premise A: I value self-preservation.
Premise B: There are people who murder.
Premise C: There are people who do not murder.
Premise D: Some of the people who do not murder will also value self-presevation.
Premise E: It is harder to murder someone in a group of people than it is to murder a solitary person.
Premise A + Premise E: My chances of surviving being murdered increase if I am in a group of people who want to stay together.
Premise D + Premise E: 'Not being murdered' will be an attractive idea to others who value self-preservation.
Conclusion (Premise A + Premise D + Premise E): If I morally accept that I will not murder others, this will attract other non-murderous people and therefore increase my chances of surviving being murdered.
Hence:
quote:
If we value self-preservation, then "Thou shall not murder" is a moral value we should uphold.
I find this logical. I also find this subjective. Subjective because if someone does not accept my premises, then they will not come to the same conclusion.
I assume you also see this as subjective.
Why do you not find it logical?
Also, if it's "trivially obvious" that all morals are subjective, then what grounds do we have for disagreeing with others about what is right and what is wrong? I myself don't think we have any grounds at all, other than our feelings.
The grounds we have are those subjective feelings. The good thing is that the grounds agaist us are only equally subjective feelings.
Our weapon is that logical analysis of the pros and cons of the results of certain actions can increase our knowledge. An increase of knowledge has the ability to change our feelings. Therefore it is possible to persuade others into thinking certain subjective morals are better than others.
Some say it was immoral for us to invade Iraq.
Others say it was highly moral.
How can either side be right?
I think you mean "right" in an objective sense here. And, as I've stated, I think morals are subjective. Therefore, niether of the sides will be "right" in the objective sense. But one thing will (sorry, 'has') been done. Someone has used their subjective feelings and logical analysis to persuade others into putting them into a place of power which could enable these actions. The same person has used their logial analysis to persuade enough people that the action is morally right enough to perform the action.
But I do not need a popular topic. The same thing goes for blatant murder. I do not think that it is objectively "wrong" to murder. I think it is good for me, my family, my country.. everyone.. to not murder. And I have logical reasons for thinking that way. I can use these logical reasons to show others, and to persuade them.
™ Version 4.2