Yes, you can prove the subjectivist position incorrect.

To summarize their point of view for those that haven’t taken a philosophy course and aren’t aware how badly you have been hoodwinked (they will try and twist this around and hide this, but boil down the words that they say, extend it to its logical conclusion and this is what you get):

1. There is no such thing as universal truth except that there is no universal truth.
2. We’re all wrong, we can’t ever be right about anything because our senses deceive us.
3. Because we’re all wrong, it is wrong to make a moral judgement on anything anyone ever does because it can be no more wrong or right than what you believe. (Moral equivalence)
4. To Each Their Own.

Now before I go and prove these statements wrong, let’s examine each one to try and discern what they are really saying:

1. There is nothing true. Everything changes at all times and is never consistent. The theory being here (to paraphrase someone in the message boards) that there could be, somewhere else in the universe (reality) an example that disproves anything that you theorize and thus you can never say for sure that it is ALWAYS true. Notice the word universe. It’s particularly important here. Universe = reality. What they are saying is that in reality there are no rules that govern reality all of the time. Logically if that is so, if you believe strongly enough that the sun will come up neon green, there is a possibility it might come up neon green. Heck even if you don’t believe it strongly enough, there is still a chance that the sun might come up neon green.
2. The basis for this one is that we always see things from perspective. There are always things that we cannot directly perceive and the things that we can perceive will be tainted by our limited senses and thus as a result we will be wrong even if it is in the most minute way. Notice that this statement assumes that we must directly experience something with our senses to know of its existence or to measure it. But on the surface, doesn’t this one make sense? I mean didn’t Einstein point out perspective and how you always have to be aware of it? Isn’t it obvious that our senses lie to us on a regular basis? (Mirage etc.) On the surface yes. If you take the input from your senses without using your brain, yes. Now what is the consequence of this statement? Well if you take this statement to be correct, then that would mean that we’re muddling through life just like an animal, without purpose beyond surviving and procreating (love the result of hormones that encourages teenagers to reproduce with abandon). Any effort to understand the world around you is a fruitless waste of energy that can never actually succeed. That the effort of education is a waste of energy because you’re teaching what’s wrong anyhow. The “extreme” logical conclusion is go back to a cave and survive however you can, because you can be no more than wrong so what’s the point in striving to be anything more? You can’t possibly be anything more because your entire belief system is wrong from the start, thus your purpose is wrong, thus you have no valid purpose and are cast about adrift. (this is very important)
3. This one is my favourite. It’s a catchy one that subjectivists while they believe it have all kinds of defences for the obvious that comes from it. For instance, this statement clearly says that the men that executed 9/11 were no more good or evil than one of the people that jumped from the top of the world trade center in a vain attempt to survive. It says that serial killers are just as justified in their belief that those people should die, as the mothers that think it was evil that they’re children died. But watch out! Here it comes…. At this point when you bring these points out they say “of course that’s not the case. You’re being an extremist.” Notice this phrase. It’s the most dangerous phrase ever said (right up there with the big 3 evil words). It’s very clever because using it means that you have frogs in slowly warming water. Human beings, like frogs are incredibly bad at noticing degrees of anything. For instance, we are horrible at noticing very subtle color changes. However, if you take those slight gradations out of a picture, we notice them right away. The key is the phrase “You’re being an extremist” prevents you from ever seeing the entire picture and allowing you to notice the most obvious removal of color because of course it’s silly to believe that a terrorist is no more good or evil than a mother wishing her child to live. Of course it is. And that’s the point. By removing the extreme case, you take away our ability to intelligently analyse a situation and recognize it for what it is: A sham. The next phrase that goes along with this is “balance” or “the middle road”. What this means is stay in the middle, stay with the little things that don’t matter much. Because then we can twist you around in circles all day long until you’re not sure if it matters at all, and even if it does if it’s ok to judge anyone because it really doesn’t matter that much, so you’re far less willing to fight for it than say fighting for your freedom from terror.
4. Coming from moral equivalence is “to each their own”. What does this mean? It’s a summation of moral equivalence and all of the rest of the precepts of subjectivists. What is says is that I’m as entitled to my opinion as anyone else. Sounds great doesn’t it? Sounds like freedom to me! But wait! Um, doesn’t that mean that I’m also just as entitled to act on my opinion as anyone else? If I’m entitled to it, then I’m obviously entitled to act on it and because of #2 I’m just as right in believing in whatever it is that I’ve decided arbitrarily (of course just making something up on a whim is no more right or wrong than scientific method by this corollary either) I am no more morally corrupt than anyone else because I acted on my beliefs. In fact, acting on one’s beliefs could be said to be the highest value of subjectivity. You get to act on your belief system and everyone else has to live with it because they can’t be any more right than you. And that is the wondrous democracy of subjectivity. And then Ted Bundy happens, or 9/11 happens or France criticizes the US for sending an air craft carrier to help in the aid of the Tsunami victims.

It’s amazing how simply following these statements to their logical conclusion makes them seem some how very ridiculous doesn’t it? But remember, following statements to their logical conclusion is extremism and is to be avoided at all costs because there are different rules from the extreme cases that make it less extreme. Murder is bad, well unless you’re PMSing or have a really good lawyer and then there are rules for what’s ok and not ok in that too, and don’t dare look at the logical conclusion of those rules, because there will be another set of rules for that extreme case, just so that you can’t point out the contradiction. The core to the defence of subjectivism is to always hide the contradiction in a different rule. It’s to create an exception where there is none. Guard against this. It is the key to recognizing a lie and the first step in fighting against it. As soon as someone makes an exception to a rule, you can be sure that the rule isn’t true.

Like it or not, subjectivists can’t bring themselves to state that contradictions are OK. (they do try though)Why? I suspect that it’s because at some very low level there is a point where we can’t delude ourselves past our very primordial being, from the soup that we came from. It kicks in and points out what every animal already knows. Food doesn’t just enter their mouth just for wishing, they have to go out in kill it and no matter what they do, in their lives if they sit on their ass and don’t bother to hunt, they’re dead. (i.e. you don’t get something for nothing, and anything else would be a contradiction for which the animals knows the result.) Every animal knows instinctually that there is no such thing as a contradiction. Try it out on your dog sometime. They are remarkably intelligent when you compare them to some humans.

Now to disprove each and every one of these: (they all fall apart if you destroy the first one, but…)

1. #1 has two easy disproofs (nice word eh?): The first is this: You cannot make a definition for which that which you are defining includes the definition itself and then exclude the definition. To put it another way, you introduce a superset of your definition as soon as you make an exception to it. In the case of “the universe” you cannot make a superset of it. It’s impossible to do so and still allow that superset to have effect on the universe. By definition the universe is all inclusive of anything that can affect the universe. That is the definition of reality. Anything that is unreality has no effect on reality. And since the universe is a synonym for reality, you get my point. The superset of the definition, being outside the set of reality cannot possibly have any control over reality, thus the definition is at the least irrelevant, but more obviously incorrect.
   
   The second is a simple mathematical proof: (X + Y) x Z = XxZ + YxZ. This is a simple mathematical equation. Why would this be important to anyone? Well sales tax for one. It is the proof that if you pay two separate bills, one for $10 + tax and another for $12 + tax it would cost you no more or less than if you had one bill for $22 + tax assuming that tax is a constant. (i.e. 15% bloody percent here in Ontario) The question is how do we know that the above equation is always true? I’ve mentioned it before, but I figured I would show it out so that people couldn’t dismiss it. Here’ is the mathematical proof for the above:
   
   Where n = 0:
   
   (0 + 0) x 0 = 0 x 0 + 0 x 0
   0 = 0
   
   Check! So we know that this equation works for n=0 (incidentally this proof works for all real and unreal numbers (eg i included)
   
   Where n = 1:
   
   (1 + 1) x 1 = 1x1 + 1x1
   2 x 1 = 1 + 1
   2 = 2
   
   Check! Now the interesting part…
   
   Where n = n:
   
   (N + N) x N = N x N + N x N
   2N x N = N^2 + N^2 (^2 = squared in computational notation)
   2N^2 = 2N^2
   
   Check! But why is this important? And how does this disprove the subjectivist’s first law? Because N is any real or unreal number. (i.e. any number conceived of or not because real + unreal = EVERYTHING) Thus in this one example I have provided a contradiction of the first law of subjectivism. Thus since there is no such thing as a contradiction in the set defined as reality (speaking math ) the first law of subjectivism cannot be true. Thus there MUST BE universal truth.
   
   (if you don’t follow what I just did, go back and remember your grade 9 and 10 algebra classes, I don’t really want to get into explaining why 2N x N = 2N^2 because it is an exercise for the reader that most of you already learned in school that in itself has a proof)
   
   
2. Yes, all of the rest of the arguments are as a result of the first, but let’s look at the rest too. #2 “We’re all wrong…” We I was just right above. I mean 100% right in all cases inclusive without any exception. Hence the term mathematical proof. Further think about the ramifications of this. It makes an important assumption that was fair at the time of Kant when he wrote the claptrap that was subjectivism. It assumes that we can never gather data without direct observation (i.e. with one of our senses). However, this assumption is incorrect. Physicists do it every day. They watch the effect that the other particles have on things we can observe using instruments that don’t work as magnifiers of our senses (i.e. telescopes, hearing aids etc.) Quarks are known to exist and have been clearly defined, both in their nature and in their definition and more importantly their purpose. They have NEVER (yet) been directly observed either by a computer using senses that aren’t even remotely similar to our own, or by a magnification of human senses (i.e. a microscope). Again, this is the example that proves the point incorrect.
   
   Further this argument exerts perspective. It states that our definition will always be hopelessly skewed by perspective and as a result we can never get to the universal truth because there are always things hidden from us as a result of that perspective. Thus we are all ignorant fools. (logical conclusion of the original statement) However this is patently false too. This is what Einstein’s general theory of relativity is all about. In fact it’s very simple to demonstrate a case that isn’t true of this statement. Consider two cars going at different velocity in opposing directions (i.e. approaching each other on a highway) To the people in the car, the opposing car is going it’s speed + the speed that it is approaching that car at. To the cop with the radar gun asleep on the side of the road with his donut in his lap, and coffee cup precariously close to falling out of his hand all over his lap who just got awakened by the alarm handily built into the radar gun to wake him up, the opposing car is only going to speed that that car says it’s going on the speedometer. I.e. because the cop car is stationary it has a different perspective and thus the velocity of the opposing car is different when you’re the sleepy cop and when you’re the driver in oncoming traffic. Well that’s fine as far as it goes, and seems to proof the point right? We don’t know what the cop sees because we can’t right? We’re in the car that’s moving, we can’t possibly understand or know exactly what the cop sees! Wrong. The cop is stationary. Thus we have all of the variables. If we take the cumulative speed of the opposing car, subtract our speed in the directly opposing direction, and add the speed along the vector of the cop car (conveniently he’s stopped so this becomes easy instead of a calculus equation) we know exactly what the cop sees as the speed of the opposing car. Again we proof the contradiction. Complex stuff eh? Though you were going to get out of physics after high school eh? Sorry. All that damn calculus you learned actually was learned for a reason even though you forgot it right after SATs. Calculus is the study of the area under the curve (short version for those of you who are calculus majors, sorry for the horrible simplification) . It is the study of rate of change and as a result also is the study of relativity. What Einstein did was simply do the math to finish the equations and boil it all down to it’s simplest form in the case of specific relativity, that means E = mc^2.
   
   (for you people out there, yes the cop is at an angle to both vehicles, so I have simplified the above, however with a little SOCATOA we can easily solve the real equation, however it would have confused the matter and deflected my point which I was trying (probably fruitlessly) to simplify)
   
   Thus, while our senses may in fact deceive us, our brains do not. If you invoke reality and reason it’s very easy to see when your senses are deceiving you, and with a little effort you can actually figure out that nasty thing called perspective and deal with it. The problem here is that all of those times you were asking your teacher in math and physics class where you would ever use this crap the answer was EVERYWHERE. It is in reality. It is specifically the ignorance of the most basic concepts of science (math is simply the tool of physics, used to explain physics) that result in subjectivity, much like it is the ignorance of physics that results in religion.
3. Ah yes, on to moral equivalence… Simply ask yourself this: “Do you value life.” If the answer is yes, then proceed to question #2 “Does anyone have a right to take life for any other reason than to protect their own life?” If the answer is No, proceed to question #3. #3 Is life a universal value that can be applied to all of humanity? (and keeping in mind that all of the major religions of the world hold life as their highest ideal… well right behind sodimizing young boys and lying to the public about really happened around Jesus Christ, but you get my point). If the answer is yes, then you do not believe in moral equivalence and you do believe in liberty. If you agree with the 3 statements I have made, then you not only have a right to make a moral judgement on others, you have an obligation to do so. You have an obligation to yourself to fight anyone or anything that takes life or interferes with anyone’s ability to enjoy it. Because if your neighbour’s life is taken or interfered with for whatever reason, even if you like the outcome, then someone else will sooner or later come knocking on your door to do a variation on the same theme to you. This is called “Enlightened self-interest” (those of you that saw “A Beautiful Mind” will recall exactly what this meant with regards to the hot blond from the Matrix city walk in the bar). Basically this means, you have an obligation to fight death and those that embrace it, because if you don’t fight it now, sooner or later you won’t have a choice and it will be your life on the line instead of someone else’s. To stop death and the interference with liberty the most effective (and thus enlightened) way to fight it is to always stop it and provide it no quarter; which of course brings us to the next point.
4. To each their own. To extend it to its logical conclusion “To each their own opinion/belief/faith”. Subjectivists would lead you to believe that there is an exception to this rule for things like murder, because we wouldn’t want to be extremists. But the cold hard fact is that human beings are not capable of holding a belief and not in some way acting upon it. The Nazi hates Jews. The Nazi is not capable of not allowing that belief to affect and color how they treat others, how they act in the world. Our actions are the result of our values and stimuli that causes us to act according to those values. Thus, eventually the Nazi will act. And just like the frog it might be something like a racial slur on a street. But then it will slowly escalate and next it will be graffiti on the side of a temple and next it will be 3 millions Jews dead in a furnace. Each and every one of us is entitled to hold a non-contradictory belief. (i.e. a universally true belief) We are entitled to act on that non-contradictory belief. What we are not allowed, and cannot be allowed is to hold a contradictory belief that is acted upon. What does this mean exactly? (sounds awfully Orwellian doesn’t it?) It means that you no more should accept the position of the Nazi than that of a terrorist come to kill your child. That they haven’t acted simply means that they haven’t broken the law… yet. However, no matter if the person has already acted or not, you have an obligation to destroy this point of view whenever it is communicated. The Nazi view is evil. The Nazi that communicates it to others spreads decease. You must fight it with the truth because truth is your only weapon against it. (Sad that Subjectivism takes this one tool away from you isn’t it?) It may just be words and you know what, that’s the great thing about acting when it’s just an idea that is being communicated. Words are often enough to kill the tumour before it spreads. But make no mistake, if you do not act, not only will the Nazi act, but he will corrupt others and they will act. And if you do nothing when they act because you believe that it is someone else’s problem then we will again have WWII. Churchill tried very hard to point this very statement out the Chamberlain and the League of Nations, and obviously he failed. If one man had dared to stand up the first time Hitler spoke his evil words of hate, hate of life, hate of freedom, hate of reality, and destroyed those words and exposed them for what they were, death, World War II would never have happened.
   
   This is the key. You are entitled to your own thoughts. You are entitled to hold them until the moment you try to communicate them to others or act upon them. At that moment, you have given every just man and woman the right to judge your thought and the belief that came of it. Further you give them the right to fight you with everything they have to ensure the highest value: Life.
   
   What does this matter to “To each their own”? It matters because people believe in this world that they are entitled to speak their minds and not be judged because of “to each their own”. In fact, based on the subjectivist view, judgement is an evil thing done by evil people that might turn out to be Nazis themselves. It’s obvious were this comes from #2, #3, and #4 on their greatest hits, but at the same time, it’s a false expectation. Human beings are greater than animals specifically because of judgement. We are able to judge that which is good for us (i.e. enables life) and that which isn’t. We are able to judge if something is like something else, or something new all-together, hence our ability to learn. It is this very principle of judgement that provides humanity with the ability to think rationally and that which gives rise to the very definition of humanity: Rational Animal. To deny judgement is to deny exactly what we are. And more to the point, it is to deny that which enables us to be something more than just an animal. It is to deny the possibility of greatness. Judging others and daring to say “You’re wrong and I’m right” is not a Nazi. It is what makes us great. It means that you are HUMAN. And you should be proud of that. What makes a Nazi a Nazi is their contradictions. Their disregard for the highest value, life, and their belief that a mistake of birth (being born a Jew) provides you with any value what-so-ever. It is not because they dare to judge that makes them evil. It is what they make that judgement UPON that is evil.

Now, this post is going to piss off a lot of subjectivists. They will trot out all of their excuses as to why what I’m saying is wrong, or better yet, try and paint me as an extremist simply because I carry their values to their logical conclusion. Use reason to question what they say. Do as I have done and ask yourself “what does that literally mean to me?” As yourself “What is the outcome of such as statement?” If you question subjectivity with your rational animal’s mind you will see the lies and contradictions that make up most of our society today. And make no mistake, they are the most dangerous thing to ever exist, because they encourage the frog to sit in warm water that is slowly getting hot instead of the likes of religion that says “Jump into the hot water, it will be painless”.

This is the next great battle. It is what destroyed Rome, and it is what is slowly but surely eating away at North American society and will eventually destroy it. If you believe in the values of life and liberty, that which the United States of America was founded for, then this is your fight. Everything else, whether it be stupid stickers in the front cover of text books about Evolution or whether it be Altruism and the government’s right (or lack there of) to take your money and give it to those that did not earn it. This is not a war about democrat or republican. This is war about freedom and life.

P.S. There is one conclusion that I didn’t mention that comes from Subjectivity. Socialism. Communism as defined by Karl Marx is actually the direct result of subjectivity. It is an attempt to provide purpose for the purposeless (he makes the assumption that Kant was correct at the very beginning of his Manifesto). It’s at its base an assertion that if you can have no purpose, the only thing left is your relationships with others and as a result, those others are the highest value. Not your life, but theirs. (this is the key to it’s evil) However, I’ll leave this one to you to apply what I have outlined above and understand the contradictions and ultimately death (50+ million in the USSR alone as a direct result) that comes from socialism since the basis for socialism has already been disproven by this essay.