Objectively Better vs Subjectively the Same

This has been a useful distinction for me.

To put it succinctly, some people are objectively better than others, whilst all people are subjectively the same.

Everyone is genetically compatible. The subjective substance of what and who people are is the same. Fear is fear.

Yet when we “zoom out” to the macro view, we observe that some people are better people. Kinder actions, actively cooperative, deliberately helping others, happier and more pleasant.

They are better people.

One thought which has been useful to me is the statement “If I had lived their life, I would be them, and if they had lived mine, they would be me.”

One of us may be objectively better than the other. However, this doesn’t mean people are subjectively better.

Perhaps there are better words than “objectively and subjectively” I am not so pleased with “subjective”, though “objective” works for me.

More than happy to change the words out if anyone has better terms.

maybe i’m not fully understanding you so please clarify if so! i think “objective better” is always dependent on a category. example - some people are definitely measurably better at chess, sports, more attractive, etc.

but there is no absolute criterion of “better”. all the “better” stuff you listed is better in the category of being pro-social. i guess this is where subjective “better” could come into play? because most people would argue pro-social behavior makes you a “better” person - and maybe yes, from the subjective human perspective this is true, it is good for humanity if more people behaved un-selfishly. but maybe from the perspective of a species that is going extinct from human overpopulation, the “better” human is the selfish one that will undermine humanity and behave in ways that may decimate our population lol

1 Like

I agree. I am usually specifically concerned with who people are in the world, their character, their behaviour and attitudes.

One could try to create some absolute criterion, but what would be the point?

The main idea which really struck home after a heartbreak was the realisation that “if I had been born her, I would be her.” I am not somehow superior in what I am made out of.

However, objectively, I am a kinder and more considerate person. I didn’t get there by being made out of something different though. I was conditioned differently. I had a different culture, beliefs etc, all of which were “handed to me”.

There is probably a better way of saying it.

Normally, people will say something like “if I were you, I would have done it differently”.

This is a symptom of believing I am some “soul or spirit” which in itself is fundamentally seperate from the genetic inheritance, the conditioning, culture etc I was born in.

If the psychic energy which is at the root of ‘me’ was transferred in utero to another mother’s baby back 1976, I would ‘be’ that person. I would develop exactly the same.

It seems like a mute point. However, there is a curious pride which is behind the normal way people blame others.

The alternative is to recognise that some people are better (in whatever category) through no credit or blame.

There is no need to be proud or humble in the face of facts.

Yes it’s all down to this fundamental feeling/belief that ‘I’ am somehow special. If I was do deduce all the facts of a situation ‘I’ would still insert myself and claim that it went well because ‘I’ am special, or it went badly because ‘I’ must have bad luck, the world is against ‘me’ etc

Or actually it seems to swing the other way too, as in ‘I’ am special in how bad ‘I’ am at things :joy: As in if things go bad it can’t be down to the variables that contributed to the outcome but rather ‘my’ very essence is ‘wrong’.

Like you say there is a denial of facts so that ‘I’ can arrogate ‘myself’ over life.

Ah, I think I know what the original thoughts were now.

Subjectively, all ‘selves’ are maintaining ‘themselves’.

Objectively, people are better or worse in how they behave.

A ‘self’ isn’t intrinsically better despite it maintaining a ‘reality’ which is objectively better.

For example, someone who volunteers their time to help others, is pleasant and kind, has awareness of others and consideration, is better than someone who never lifts a finger for anything other than personal gain.

Both however are ‘selves’.

I guess this might be easier to put into context as well when we remember that those ‘selves’ have no actual existence at all.

In order to say that one ‘self’ is objectively better such thing would first have to objectively/factually exist :joy:

There is the illusion of self which is causing this flesh and blood body to act in various ways which range from extreme to well adjusted - based on many factors.

1 Like