hi izopyn, I have a few questions
first, how can you claim the existence of objectivity at all by your definitions it doesnt seem like that is possible
consider that for something to exist it much be identifiable which means it must be differentiatable
if something is differentiatable then there is some standard by which it can be differentiated
that standard is absolutely relative to the things being differentiated
you seem to argue in this direction, claiming that any knowledge is relative, so what then is objective absolute knowledge
I submit that by your definition there is no objective knowledge, but there is a choice, a subjective relative choice
consider your life, particularly your consciousness, it may exist or not
while you are using it, it exists, while you are not, it does not, this makes the existence of consciousness relative and objective by your standard of objectivity
there is an alternative, which may appear as a subjective choice in some contexts, but in the context of the existence of your consciousness the alternative is clear, you consciousness exists or it does not
the alternative of non-existence results from conditions that disrupt the appearance of functioning of your consciousness
the alternative of existence results from conditions that preserve the appearance of function of your consciousness. from the perspective of preserving your consciouness, there is the appearance of choice, or self-awareness concerning this alternative. Specifically, what you have deemed a subjective choice, is the concept of self, life, and the preservation of self. With such self-awareness, if you desire to preserve it - and in this context your life - you have the rational capacity to understand and perceive existence from the view point of your conciousness.
Although you might consider this to be subjective, there is in fact no way to obtain or use knowledge except through your own conciousness. Any knowledge or effect that does not relate to conscious perception does not exist relative to that perception. It does not exist to you ‘subjectively’ and therefore does not exist within the entirety of the realm of knowledge possible to you. Therefore you cannot discuss it, gather facts about it, or in any way consider it, so long as you are using your mind or are aware of yourself.
This is what is truly objective and factual. That which can be known, and your rational capacity is the absolute reference point. I cannot perceive a million of something, but I understand the concept by relating it to something I can perceive: 1.
Altruism is not objective. By what objective standard, according to your understanding, would others have value? The best word to describe your objectivism is nihilism. Egoism - for self; altruism - for others; nihilism - for nothing. Your argument only claims that egoism is not objective, this does not imply that altruism is.
Ultimately, you are very confused. This is not an attack, because I am only responding to your contradictory way of thinking - which you have set forth. There is no relativity without reference points, the alternative is chaos - by very definition. You might argue that there are no reference points without relativity. That may be true, but there are then reference points! You want to keep the second piece while ignoring the first. That is a clear contradiction, and shows your confusion.
Again, I do not attack you, but I offer a theory for your mindset. I believe that you are a subjectivist contrarian. Your own perception of life, through your feelings and impressions, is your standard of knowledge. You rationalize away the contradictions within your own feelings by creating a philosophical double standard you call objective. Objective, because when it suits you to use facts and absolutes against knowledge you dislike, you can. A double standard, because when facts and absolutes support the knowledge you dislike, you appeal to relativism and the non-absolutism of absolutes. You simply switch standards when it suits you, thus rationalizing your own subjectivism. Your only honest recourse given this double standard is to accept nihilism, and so you have no reason to argue anything at all, and might as well - should your fingers contact a keyboard - type something like this: klfsnjogniaq[pas;lgigper eg ofg pdfkj.
You, your conciousness, your life is your reference point. It provides objective definition to all reality - that is, an epistemological foundation for identifying things that exist in reality. As such, the first truly objective observation you can make about value and right vs. wrong is that your life is valuable, because you could not exist in reality or perceive it without preserving your life. This is egoism. There is no more objective value than that.
My life is valuable to me, so other things that support my life are valuable to me. Knowledge is valuable. People, in fact, are valuable. My life is valuable - important enough - to me that I fight and struggle and go through discomfort, somtimes pain, and so forth on occasion and if necessary in order to preserve it and be happy. Likewise, in this context, I value the lives of others - personally. I value them for their virtues, which are reflective of my virtues. I do not value them for their needs.
Why should life be valuable? Isn’t that subjective, you might ask? It actually is subjective, objectively there is the alternative between life and death. You may choose death, objectively, but then you will have no values. But if you choose life, then your values fall into place.