Most people are not "intrinsicists" or "subjectivists", but rather have these characteristics as tendencies, and often, having *both* tendencies at the same time.

I'd say that *all* people have made mistakes of both kinds at some point in their life. We've all made some subjective and some intrinsic errors.

When we insist that facts are facts, that right is right, as against the rampant subjectivism of the age, we can easily forget that facts and values must be grasped by people, each acting on his independent judgment.  We run the risk of adopting the attitudes and policies of the intrinsicist.  When we emphasize that the true and the good are contextual, when we oppose the imposition of dogma and duty, we can easily forget that opinions and preferences are not all on a par – that some are right and others aren’t.  We run the risk of subjectivism.  To be objective, we have to hold both sets of considerations in mind, both reality and personal context.  But that’s a delicate balance to maintain in the heat of argument, in the passionate complexity of our engagement with the world and with each other.

Thanks,

Glenn

Hi Robert,

Once I switched gears and semantic meanings then I saw the excellence of your thoughts. You see I always thought moral perfectionism as “…moral principles like road maps or compasses to living -- as practical guides to direct our actions toward the achievement of values…” From that perspective I know tons of people who are morally perfect; they are sincerely engaged in the process of living life as fully as they can. From that perspective their idiosyncrasies and lapses in knowledge and context (wink, including my own) don’t really reflect their bigger picture.

Michael

So, in short, I don't think I've been at all silent about subjectivism, and only attacking intrinsicism.

That being the case, maybe you and I should start anew...perhaps even "cutting each other a little slack"?  :^)