When talking about subjective and objective truths, I’ve heard it claimed that every truth claim is “subjective” since humans are subjects. On this view, there can be no such thing as objective truth since all truth claims are made by subjects.
This is often applied in the context of the moral argument. Theists argue that morality is objective, and finds its ontological grounding in the character of God. In response, some will argue that since God is a subject, His moral commands are subjective, and hence even theistic ethics cannot provide an objective basis for morality.
This is a gross misunderstanding of the terms. Subjective and objective tell you what a statement is about – not where it comes from. To say a truth is “subjective” is to say it is about the subject himself; to say a truth is “objective” is to say it is about a mind-independent object in the world.
Thinking to Believe 
June 6, 2013 at 2:25 pm
You said,
“Subjective and objective tell you what a statement is about – not where it comes from.”
No, they tell you where the property of an object comes from.
Truth is objective because the truth property of an “is” claim-object proceeds solely from that claim-object and the set of world objects.
Morality is subjective because the deontic property of an “ought” claim-object proceeds *also* from what one or more subjects value. It does not *simply* use inert objects as referents; it references also mind-dependent values.
You said,
“Theists argue that morality is objective”
I argue that applied morality is subjective, and that moral realism is false, while also being a theist. Be careful not to recklessly generalize.
I will say, however, that “objective” and “subjective” are so hopelessly functionally fuzzy that they are *almost* useless as discriminatory terms in serious philosophical/theological discussion. That’s because minds are brains are objects. They’re a folk vestige of mind-matter dualism and *probably* do more harm than good in communication.
LikeLike
June 6, 2013 at 2:33 pm
What do you mean by saying that subjective and objective “tell you where the property of an object comes from”?
And what are you basing your definitions on? Can you point me to a philosophical dictionary or philosophical tradition that endorses your definitions? Because traditionally subjective and objective refer to what a proposition is about. If it is about the external world, then it is objective. If it is about a subject, then it is subjective.
I consider you to be one strange theist! I don’t see how it makes sense to say God exists, and yet He is not the locus of moral value, and that those moral values are objective in nature.
So is your denial of dualism driving your definition? I don’t see why, even if you are a monist, you would have to dispense with the traditional definition of these terms. Even if a subject just is a brain (which I don’t agree with), there are truths about that subject that are peculiar to that subject (e.g. what kind of ice cream he thinks is best). Objective truths, on the other hand, are truths about the world independent of our own consciousness.
Jason
LikeLiked by 1 person