To be objective: one must look at a problem, idea, or thing from every possible angle and point of view. But there's a huge problem with the way in which people view the concept of objectivity. By definition, one who is objective rejects all subjective thought. One does this on the grounds that subjective thought is either groundless or without sufficient evidence to support it. Here is a classic example of a clash between subjective and objective thought.
Subjective Thought: "All black people tip white servers poorly"
Objective Thought: "It is wrong to say that all black people tip white servers poorly for two reasons. One: There is not a person alive who can make argument that all black people tip white servers poorly because there is not a person alive who knows all black people. Two: I am a white server and have actually been tipped well by black people."
If the facts stated by the Objective Thought are true, and I don't think anybody will be quick to say that they aren't, then one could say that the logic of the Objective Thought is infallible. But the Objective Thought is actually a fallacy, and that would be because it included the word "wrong". By including that word the Objective Thought assumed the moral high ground, which is no place to be if you are striving for objectivity.
When I say that something is good, or that something is bad; it is because I "know" it to be good or bad. But why do I know some things to be good and some things to be bad? What reference do I have to go by? What rules can I follow for defining a thing as good or bad? There aren't any unless you believe in a god or higher power. (This argument is operating under the assumption that anyone who believes in a god are higher power is subjective) The truly objective person cannot ignore the fact that there is no obvious reason to label a particular kind of thought as good or bad.
The statement made by the Objective Thought would have been one hundred percent correct had it not used the word "wrong" or any other kind of word that would have applied morality to the argument. What this means is that a subjective thought can be shown to be completely illogical, but one can never label such a thought as wrong, foolish, stupid, ect. and claim to be objective at the same time.
Now I hope that people will understand exactly what kind of thought (objective or subjective) they are subscribing to when they start calling things good or bad. That doesn't mean I want people to stop calling things good and bad. If anything people should continue do that. If only so many of them would stop claiming to be objective once they start making moral judgments.
| 
