Can humans be objective?

[TheFifthElement]

Definition : Objective - 'Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices'

Is there such a thing as objectivity?

Are humans capable of objectivity?

Is objectivity real, or just another idealistic principle like justice or truth, nice in principle but imperfectly operated in human hands?

What say you

[manolia]

I am afraid not..At least i haven't met one such person, although i know some who are almost there.
I try to be objective myself but with certain topics i am completely the opposite (and i know it)

[Lily Adams]

I agree with manolina. I really don't think it's possible. Humans are fundamentally irrational, and fundamentally unjust. Believe what you will, but you look through your glasses and the rest of the world looks at them.

[Stanislaw]

I agree, people can not be objective, since people view and understand their surroundings based on their personal experiences. People can't help but be biased, its the only way we can interpret anything.

[crazefest456]

At first I thought that too, that humans can NEVER be objective, but I'm thinking if some form of brainwashing or psychological torture can give a higher degree of objectivity to someone (for a VERY short period of time, i.e. before the person starts learning things). Maybe I'm looking at this in a wrong way...

[Virgil]

It depends. Yes, if one is limits oneself to data based decisions, then yes one can be objective. The question is, can the decision be framed by data or is it one of those questions that either data doesn't exist or isn't possible. Yes, I believe that I can make an objective decision in some cases.

[Sweets America]

I believe that human beings can have a certain degree of objectivity, as long as they detach themselves from their own point of view and try to understand the opinion of someone else. We are not compelled to have opinions based on our own experiences, we can distance ourselves from our personal views. I am sure that when I try to be objective on a subject, I am still biased without being aware of it though. Discussing with people who have opposite views as yours help you to realize when we are biased. I'm sure it's very difficult to detach ourselves from our feelings, but I think we can do it. I know I can defend the point of view of someone even if I totally reject it on a personal level. I can put myself at the place of other people, think about their own life and understand why they would think this or that way.

[Granny5]

I think that there are people, because of the work they do, that are able to be objective. I know several judges who base their decisions on the exact letter of the law, so they do not let their own beliefs rule their decisions. (Of course, there are bad judges, but the good one work very hard at this). I think that a good doctor makes his or her decisions based on the presented facts. I think that good teachers do not let the like or dislike of a student decide the grade. There are good and bad in all occupations I know, but I really want to believe the good outnumber the bad. So, I guess I believe that there are people in the world who can be objective.

One more thing, there are people on these forum who seem to be very objective and I always heed what they say about a poem or story because I think their knowledge over rules whether they "like" someone or not.

[cactus]

From my understanding, the idea of objectivity and its parameters are based on the notion of truth. In short to be objecive is to stick to the facts, the truth. But truth, according to Michel Foucault, is relative and is defined by ideas and structures that are commonly believed by all (to the the truth) and supported and consolidated by other ideas and those who we judge to be experts in the matter. To give one example, we define animals according to species and family groups and these ideas are supported by scientists...etc. But such construction is man-made and because everyone now classify animals in this way, we believe our understanding of animals to be the truth. Hypothetically, if an alien group of people landed on earth and tell us that animals are only those we could eat, are they wrong? They are not wrong because that is the way they classify animals and... other things (species that one can not eat).

In summary we can be objective but only within the parameters of in which we define as the truth.

[mazHur]

Objectivity is self assertion, a close relative of fantasy and fanaticism. For example, the object of a football player is to hit a goal. He secures a goal but only by shoving the ball into his own goal post! Similarly, one 's object is to catch a train to reach his destination (recall what happened with Columbus) He get on the train but later finds that he's traveling toward a wrong destination. Again, men worship god not exactly what god is? This all goes to make objectivity a matter of quasi-truth. There's something more to objectivity which could make it snugly fit on the idol of data as data itself is not Objectivity in itself. QED
Here is a joke I just bumped against on the net regarding Objectivity. The outcome really leaves a lot for the guys to be done !




It was opening night at the Orpheum theater and the Amazing Eileen was topping the bill. People came from miles around to see the famed hypnotist do her stuff.

As the Amazing Eileen took to the stage, she announced, ''Unlike most stage hypnotists who invite two or three people up onto the stage to be put into a trance, I intend to hypnotize each and every member of the audience.''


The excitement was almost electric as the Amazing Eileen withdrew a beautiful antique pocket watch from her coat.

''I want you each to keep your eye on this antique watch . It's a very special watch. Its been in my family for six generations.''


She began to swing the watch gently back and forth while quietly chanting, ''Watch the watch, watch the watch, watch the watch.... ''.

The crowd became mesmerized as the watch swayed back and forth, light gleaming off its polished surface.


Hundreds of pairs of eyes followed the swaying watch, until suddenly it slipped from the hypnotist's fingers and fell to the floor, breaking into a hundred pieces.

''Sh*t'' said the hypnotist.

It took three weeks to clean up the theatre . ...

[bazarov]

I think we can be objective, always in situations that doesn't involve people we know or care for them, and if we are strong and resolute also in situations which involves are closest friends and family or us.

[adampearson]

I must say, I am impressed by the responses. The only things that are objective are those that pass the "hey, look at that" test. If something cannot be proved based on that simple criteria, it cannot be expressed in objective terms by humans.

[Oniw17]

If everyone were objective in every decision they made, there would be no argument for disbelief in determinism as the state of the universe. I'd rather people be somewhat arbitrary myself, except in things like science and math and discussion, and whatever else goes with those.

[NikolaiI]

Another thing that is a problem here, as well as the fact that each of us have unique opinions and no one can agree; is that each of us, apparently, is trying to manipulate all of the others. This is why there is merit to what may seem as impulsive. What may seem an impulsive action can be good or bad sometimes; it is good because it's an automatic reaction, but bad because it may further something negative (for instance, you might make yourself more angry, or something like that). So there's a need for both spontenaety as well as objectivity, or planning.

The next thing that comes to mind is realization. We might have a realization about truth; but then, it might be a temporary realization. (This seems true to me, but I will be honest with you in that I am paraphrasing with something I recently read). So a temporary realization would be one that disappeared as soon as something difficult came along. The solution? Make sure we understand the difficult.

I'll speak about clarity for a moment, instead of objectivity. Or actually, what the lack of clarity means. May I say delusion, or duality? I mean, these are what I define these things as. Well, recently I sort of have the idea that most people rest less in duality than people usually think. That is, people are less distanced from reality as we always say. But then, the other side of that, we could say that everyone rests in duality.

Anyway, I will say that I do believe people can attain enlightenment, and that I think it is like the Buddhists say, that is very rare. For instance, "The Buddha," is the Buddha of our age, referred to as Shakayumani Buddha. There were something like 15-20 before him, and a certain number are predicted after. This just goes to show that it's very rare.

I prefer the term clarity to objectivity, and I mostly only think in a Buddhist sense. There are many angles and perspectives about all of this. Buddhists teach that meditation is the discipline which will result in clarity, joy, and absence of thoughts, but that is just what they say. They also stress so many other things, and to be honest, these are all the entanglements of dharma. For instance, some traditions will talk about other ways of looking at it, like when they say it's good to no longer try to extend meditation or distinguish between meditation and nonmeditation. Or what has been said about mahamudra; it's said that when you attain nonattainment, this is mahamudra.

I've gotten off-topic, and I see no way to end this- (having just deleted a paragraph comparing the no-goal idea in Buddhism to Western thinking)

[dramasnot6]

One can never be WHOLLY objective, but relative to all other species humans are capable of being able to distance themselves consciously fairly successfully. It is not so much about completely eliminating bias, as it is recognizing what your bias is and working with and around it.