-->
@Theweakeredge
Truth would necessarily have to be objective,
Truth would necessarily have to be inter-subjective.
FACT must be empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary (and emotionally meaningless).
Truth would necessarily have to be objective,
Kant's whole deal? Yes. Do I think Kant's view is correct. No. See my interactions with Sum1hugme's on the subject.
Truth as in what is true, or what is comporting to reality, as in - a fact. You seem to have a strange definition of the word truth.
If that is your understanding, then why do you say it has to be "inter-subjective" Unless I misunderstood you're meaning of that word, what precisely do you mean by inter-subjective?
In other words, you believe truth to be a fact that is believed by a number of people, and then used an axiom for further discussion?
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTYIn all circumstances, or as moral axioms? Definitely not.
...you’ve still yet to prove subjective morality.
Then its not a categorical imperative, for it to be so, it must be non-contradicting in all matters, all of these are unique maxims, and simple shifting what is meant by the moral standards.
Prove that Y is objectively true... we are speaking on whether objective morality is true, prove that its true.
Objective morality is morality that almost everybody in the world has agreed upon, no matter what nation, no matter what century. One example is this: everybody should take care of his or her own family. One cannot find any exception to this rule in any law-abiding community in the world or in history.
Disagreement doesn’t mean subjective, people disagree on whether or not the earth is round or flat, it doesn’t make the issue subjective.