This isn't really an ethical debate, it's more a question of perspective. Should we do things based on subjective, emotional rationalizations? Or, alternatively, should we base every decision on objective, detached perspective (some would say skeptical or scientific...)
My personal belief is that we're all forced to take on both. We'll never actually attain a complete a completely subjective or objective view, though I would personally suggest that 99% of society leans heavily to the subjective side of the argument.
Personally I am a sports official, at a very high level, and my role is to provide an unbiased, objective ruling based on technical criteria. This technical criteria is based on elements of control and clear technical guidelines that dictate the ruling of points in the sport. In some cases, however, the ruling is to provide an objective, unbiased ruling based on appreciation above and beyond a simple technical criteria. So even when everything is laid out in technical, objective rules and regulations - an element of appreciation is always required to satisfy that part of the psyche that goes "that was sweet."
Look at gymnastics or figure skating. There are clear, concise applications of rules and regulations that ensure that athletes meet the technical elements that have been identified by the organizing committees as important for the sport. There is also a very subjective sense of art, synchronization (which is both appealing and difficult to achieve technically) and the elements of grace and athleticism. None of those are technical elements, but something that makes us as a species go "wow, I can't do that. It's amazing."
Subjectivity is possibly what separates us from the lower life forms on the planet. We can appreciate people, items, places, concepts and ideas above and beyond a categorical analysis of everything. It is impossible to become emotionally detached from everything because we have learned to assign preferences based on emotional reactions. We get scared because something is dangerous. We enjoy sex because it feels good. Both of these are important evolutionary steps to ensure that we, as a species, survived by learning to run away from Sabre Toothed Tigers and then procreating to pass the time.
In terms of humanity, neither one is better than the other. We need both to ensure our survival as a species. Scientific process is a fantastic means to ask questions that need to be asked in a way that outside influence cannot skew the answer. Skepticism is a good means of removing personal biases and fulfilling a criteria that can be agreed upon by a great number of people by simply stating "Once you have all the facts, gravity is what holds us to the earth." The only way to refute a completely objective statement is to apply a subjective statement. It's the subjective nature of the statement that makes it completely unanswerable because it requires to change the perspective of the person making the statement. Would a person of another perspective make that same statement? Possibly or possibly not. It's impossible to tell and therefore impossible to prove otherwise.
In short, you can't have one without the other as a human being. We're not built on 100% logic. As long as we assign personal thoughts, preference and we trigger the electrochemical signals we interpret as emotions - we'll never be 100 logical. If we were 100% objective we'd be forced to assign priorities on human life, which people should be allowed to breed, the arts would fail and people would become drones because subjectivity is harmful to objectivity. Our values are basically the subjective will of society as we are raised and applied with technical, objective criteria that can (theoretically) be applied in a non-subjective manner. Only one or the other would be ruinous to our species.
So that all said, a healthy dose of both is best.
Your support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)
