Quality: Subjective or Objective?

Quality is something that objects, events, or people possess. It is something inherent that we recognize. But is it objective or subjective?

First, let's define quality. According to dictionary.com, quality is an "inherent or distinguishing characteristic; a property" and "having a high degree of excellence."

All objects have some form of quality, whether it be poor or good. The wooden table I'm typing on is of poor quality; it breaks easily, scratches easily, and doesn't even look good. Everyone would agree that the table is of poor quality. Therefore quality is objective.

However, person A thinks that a certain modern art painting is of low quality. It doesn't look even remotely like anything realistic; the colors clash; and the shapes make no sense. Person B, though, thinks the painting has a high amount of quality. It shows the depth of emotion; it represents something deeper. Neither person is wrong. Therefore quality is subjective.

Can something really be both subjective and objective? Shouldn't it be one or the other? And what is quality really anyway? How do you define it?

 

I take an idealist view.

Art, and quality, are emotions and ideas, rather than something that can be defined generically. When one looks at an art or craft, that particular object isn't inherently good quality or bad quality - the thing that defines its quality is purely mental, even emotional. What may be a bad quality, battered old chair to somebody, may be a good quality period piece, a compliment to their home, or work of art to somebody else.

There is no one thing somebody can see is definitely 'bad quality.' Neither is there anything you can say is 'good quality.' Both are based on each person's conceptions - there might be consensus on whether or not something is good quality or bad quality, but that does not necessarily make it quality. For that reason, as it is based on ideas, emotions and conceptions, whether or not something is quality is purely subjective.

- Scarlet.

 

An experiment?

Think about the movies Citizen Kane and Aliens.
Which of these movies would you rather watch?

Now then, which movie do you consider better quality?

Is there or differance or should those two ideas be the same?

 

Check out my sig.

 

I would prefer to watch Citizen Kane, and I would also consider it better quality.

That's because I believe it's a wonderful, innovative and sharp movie.

Which kind of proves my point. It's my "belief." I will acknowledge however, objectively (don't infer this to mean I see quality as objective), that, inherently, it and Aliens are indefinable of quality, as that is a belief, a conception.

- Scarlet.

 

I think this argument will (and should) split into two separate questions, one of metaphysics and one of epistemology.

In brief, metaphysics is the study of "what is true," and epistemology is the study of "what we know and how we come to know it."

So, let's stick with the problem of Citizen Kane and Aliens.

The metaphysical question is, is one movie better than the other? If the answer is yes, then quality is objective, even if we can never truly know which one's better.

The epsitemological question is, assuming that one is better, can we ever truly know which movie is better than the other?


Here are my beliefs:

On the metaphysical question, I believe that, yes, one movie IS better than the other. The alternative strikes me as silly: the alternative says, that quality is subjective and - therefore - doesn't really exist. It says that all movies (and all possible movies) are equally good. So, if I was making a movie, my decisions as a filmmaker don't really matter. Citizen Kane could utter "Rosebud" or "Who farted?" and it would make no difference.

No offense to the subjectivists, but that strikes me as absurd.

On the epistemological question, my answer is maybe: SOMETIMES we can sift the good art from the bad, SOMETIMES we can't. I can say with almost absolute certainty that Citizen Kane is better than Jackass, but it's hard to say whether Citizen Kane is better than the Godfather, or whether Jackass is better than any movie with Tom Green.


Think of it this way: let's say you're trying to figure out which animal is bigger, which animal has more mass. Sometimes it's easy (comparing an ant to an elephant). Sometimes it's hard (comparing two ants or comparing two elephants). But I do believe that, even if we can't know the answer, there IS an answer. Either Animal A has more protons and neutrons than Animal B, or vice versa, or they're PRECISELY identical.

And, sure, you can assert that quality is different from mass in that it's a subjective thing - eye of the beholder, and all that. But if you do that, you must go all the way with that assertion: you must accept that The Empire Strikes Back is no better than Starship Troopers. <shudder>


And, for the record, Citizen Kane's better than Aliens... but The Godfather, The Shawshank Redemption, and Moulin Rouge beat both, IMHO.

 

Quality is easy to determine through performance. It's relative or subjective when determining value or potential. I can look at the performance of a Sony and a Samsung and the one with the better picture that lasts longer would have the better results and therefore the better quality. When using quality to define appearance, potential or value of anything without compareable data, it is relative to the person.

 

On the metaphysical question, I believe that, yes, one movie IS better than the other.

That's your belief. Is that not subjective? It's different to "knowing" one is better than the other, in which case there'd have to be an unbiased, external factor which made it so. However, as one could even debate the existence of the external, this is immaterial.

The alternative strikes me as silly: the alternative says, that quality is subjective and - therefore - doesn't really exist.

Ah, no. To me, the alternative says "there is quality, but it is based purely upon a persons point-of-view."

It says that all movies (and all possible movies) are equally good.

It says that all movies are neither inherently "good" nor "bad." How can a movie, a recording upon a piece of film, possibly be inherently "good" or "bad"? That's a purely personal view, as I'm sure you'll agree. Some people hated Gladiator, but most people I know loved it; this just goes to show that there is no external, immutable "good" or "bad," "good quality" or "poor quality."


So, if I was making a movie, my decisions as a filmmaker don't really matter. Citizen Kane could utter "Rosebud" or "Who farted?" and it would make no difference.

Logic would dictate you would appeal to most peoples sense of what is good, rather than try and make a good movie. The two are different.

No offense to the subjectivists, but that strikes me as absurd.

It personally strikes me as absurd that people believe there is some kind of arbitrarily "good" or "bad" quality to existence. Surely, "good" or "bad" is a feeling, not an inalienable truth of existence?

On the epistemological question, my answer is maybe: SOMETIMES we can sift the good art from the bad, SOMETIMES we can't.

This is particularly true in copies and forgeries. The two would look exactly similar, thus, to a subjectivisit, they would be equally valuable; however, we know that people pay much more to know it's an original. That's because they "believe" (again subjective) that there's something better about that.

I can say with almost absolute certainty that Citizen Kane is better than Jackass, but it's hard to say whether Citizen Kane is better than the Godfather, or whether Jackass is better than any movie with Tom Green.

Well, that's your personal, subjective view. There's no natural law that states that Citizen Kane is better than Jackass - whether something is "good" or "bad" is merely opinion. It may sound crude to say it, but even things like rape and murder are only illegal because of common consensus - i.e., most people believe them to be wrong. Not because they are "inherently" wrong.

Think of it this way: let's say you're trying to figure out which animal is bigger, which animal has more mass. Sometimes it's easy (comparing an ant to an elephant). Sometimes it's hard (comparing two ants or comparing two elephants). But I do believe that, even if we can't know the answer, there IS an answer. Either Animal A has more protons and neutrons than Animal B, or vice versa, or they're PRECISELY identical.

Ah, but isn't the idea of mass also subjective? How can you know that such a thing exists? Isn't it entirely possible that you float in a Void, and the world as you know is just one mass hallucination, with no set laws? It sounds ridiculous, but you can't DISPROVE that.

And, sure, you can assert that quality is different from mass in that it's a subjective thing - eye of the beholder, and all that. But if you do that, you must go all the way with that assertion: you must accept that The Empire Strikes Back is no better than Starship Troopers. <shudder>

I believe that, inherently, neither one is better than the other. However, I believe that there is consensus that ESB is better than ST.

The Godfather, The Shawshank Redemption, and Moulin Rouge beat both, IMHO.

Can't disagree there. Though it's probably more in the order of Moulin Rouge, Shawshank Redemption, Citizen Kane, Godfather for me.

 

VadersLaMent: Think about the movies Citizen Kane and Aliens.
Which of these movies would you rather watch?

I would rather watch Aliens because it appeals more to my taste. That's not to say that I don't think Citizen Kane isn't a high-quality movie. It's a matter of taste.

But take for instance 2 English Papers. The first is an 'A' paper, the second is a 'D' paper. Except for the occasinal person, all of us would agree that the 'A' paper is better and has more quality. If so many of us agree that the 'A' paper is of higher quality, doesn't quality have an objective aspect?

Quality isn't purely a matter of taste. regardless of movie taste, we would all agree that Star Wars is better than Howard the Duck, even if we're not Star Wars fans.

Bubba_the_Genius: I think this argument will (and should) split into two separate questions, one of metaphysics and one of epistemology.

That's a good distinction actually. But it only adds to the confusion in a way. Therefore quality is purely objective?

tenorjedi: Quality is easy to determine through performance.

What if I have two paintings: one was done by a 2-year-old and one by a painting master. Neither is performing anything, yet we will think of one as having more quality.

 

TheScarletBanner: Having "better results" meaning "better quality" is subjective. There is nothing to say, except your personal opinion, that one is intrinsically better than the other. This is an assault on your sense of absurdity, I grant it, but one can not prove the absolute that one thing is better than another.

If quality isn't getting better results then what is it? Dictionary.com was pretty vague if you ask me. If getting good results isn't a high degree of excellence, then what is?

 

That's your belief. Is that not subjective? It's different to "knowing" one is better than the other, in which case there'd have to be an unbiased, external factor which made it so. However, as one could even debate the existence of the external, this is immaterial.

No, I don't think my belief is subjective: it's either objectively true or objectively false.

And I don't see any problem with hinging a definition of quality on either an external Judge or an external standard of quality: this is no problem for me or anyone else who already believes in an external God and an external standard of morality.


Ah, no. To me, the alternative says "there is quality, but it is based purely upon a persons point-of-view."

Then the movie has no intrinsic quality, if it can vary from person to person. What you're talking about is a person's opinion of a movie - not the movie itself.


It says that all movies are neither inherently "good" nor "bad." How can a movie, a recording upon a piece of film, possibly be inherently "good" or "bad"? That's a purely personal view, as I'm sure you'll agree. Some people hated Gladiator, but most people I know loved it; this just goes to show that there is no external, immutable "good" or "bad," "good quality" or "poor quality."

I know it won't convince those who put no trust in the book, but the Bible teaches that, after He created the universe, God looked at what He created and said it was "good." That's one reason I believe things have intrinsic artistic value.

Another indication that things have intrinsic value is this: people argue about the quality of movies while letting people keep their preferences. If I say, "Moulin Rouge is my favorite movie," who would argue with me? But if I say, "Moulin Rouge is the best movie ever made," I will generate a very heated argument.

Is that proof? No. Can there be proof? Maybe not. Does THAT mean I'm wrong? No.

Regardless, an audience that has mixed feelings about Gladiator may ONLY indicate that a person can't PERFECTLY perceive intrinsic quality. I'm afraid you're confusing metaphysics and epistemology.


Logic would dictate you would appeal to most peoples sense of what is good, rather than try and make a good movie. The two are different.

Thing is, that's not how great movies are typically made. Most filmmakers who pander to what they think the audience believes is good usually make mediocre films. The great films come from those who ignore the audience and follow their own sense of aethestic value.


It personally strikes me as absurd that people believe there is some kind of arbitrarily "good" or "bad" quality to existence. Surely, "good" or "bad" is a feeling, not an inalienable truth of existence?

...There's no natural law that states that Citizen Kane is better than Jackass - whether something is "good" or "bad" is merely opinion. It may sound crude to say it, but even things like rape and murder are only illegal because of common consensus - i.e., most people believe them to be wrong. Not because they are "inherently" wrong.

I disagree absolutely. I believe there are such things as artistic goodness and badness - and moral goodness and evil. I believe there's such a thing as Reason - something that MUST exist outside the physical universe - so I see no difficulty in believing in external standards of beauty and morality.

I can certainly explain why I believe these things - starting with Reason - but it's a lengthy argument. Let me know if you want me to go down this road.


Ah, but isn't the idea of mass also subjective? How can you know that such a thing exists? Isn't it entirely possible that you float in a Void, and the world as you know is just one mass hallucination, with no set laws? It sounds ridiculous, but you can't DISPROVE that.

Okay, fine: if we are just part of a mass hallucination, there might not ACTUALLY be mass, a moral law, reason, or a standard of artistic beauty.

But let's take it as a tautology - as an assumed tru

 

Having "better results" meaning "better quality" is subjective. There is nothing to say, except your personal opinion, that one is intrinsically better than the other. This is an assault on your sense of absurdity, I grant it, but one can not prove the absolute that one thing is better than another.

On one level I can agree with you, and I understand exactly what you are saying. That being said I don't think it's really subjective if you're measuring quality in performance. The value of the performance is subjective but once you have established a benchmark for the performance it is no longer subjective.

What if I have two paintings: one was done by a 2-year-old and one by a painting master. Neither is performing anything, yet we will think of one as having more quality

There's no measureable data, just opinion. It falls back to the old question of "is it art?" Quality in unmeasurable terms is subjective although sensibility tells us otherwise.

 

Dr. Joseph Juran (considered one of the three "Quality Gurus") defined Quality as "fitness for use". W. Edwards Demming (another of the "Quality Gurus") defined it as "conformance to the requirements". In each case, it is based upon the idea of a standard (either for use or of design) and criteria for meeting that standard.

If you really want to learn about Quality, might I recommend that you start at the American Society for Quality website? The offer a beginner's FAQ and other materials to help you understand Quality better.

They also offer several certifications. While many of the people on these boards are probably not yet eligible for most of the certifications, you can start with the Certified Quality Improvement Associate (CQIA). I received this certification myself last year (I'm certificate number 608) and it covers the basic concepts and tools of Quality (sort of Quality 101).

I'd be happy to help answer any specific questions you might want to pose. There are so many great resources out there to help.

Kimball Kinnison

 

No, I don't think my belief is subjective: it's either objectively true or objectively false

Isn't that a subjective position based off your own perceived objectivity? I don't think you're objective, which I wouldn't define as an objective truth or objective falsehood. I'd say I subjectively think you're subjective!

(Ain't postmodernism a beeeeatch?)

E_S

 

But take for instance 2 English Papers. The first is an 'A' paper, the second is a 'D' paper. Except for the occasinal person, all of us would agree that the 'A' paper is better and has more quality. If so many of us agree that the 'A' paper is of higher quality, doesn't quality have an objective aspect?

No. Just because many people agree on something doesn't make it so. Think about this carefully.

You have two pieces of paper, with your work on it. One is marked with a (D), the other with an (A+). You realise that the (D) will get you in trouble, you also realise that the (A+) will be beneficial for you. That is a fair assumption, and I'll agree with that. However, to call one better 'quality' than another is to add to it a value that needs external judgement. Some people might prefer a (D) over an (A+), if only to appease the anti-intellectuals. That's their choice. However, consider this spatially: you stand in a room. Before you is a desk with the (A+) paper on it. On the other side of the desk is an old man in white robes; he's about as close to the traditional God image is possible. You point to your piece of paper and say 'quality.' God says 'I agree.' That would make it quality, as God, being omnipotent, is the only thing capable of complete objectivity and lack of bias. However, let's bring this back to the real world; you are pointing at you (A+) and saying quality, but there's no external, unbiased judge agreeing with you; therefore, it is your OPINION; therefore, it is subjective.

Quality isn't purely a matter of taste. regardless of movie taste, we would all agree that Star Wars is better than Howard the Duck, even if we're not Star Wars fans.

I think there might be Howard the Duck fans out there who hate Star Wars. There is no consensus on this. Even if every damn person in the world said Howard the Duck sucked, but Star Wars rocked, there'd be nothing to say that they were all right; common agreement doesn't make objectivity, it makes mass subjectivity. Irregardless of how many opinions there are, that doesn't stop them from being opinions.

What if I have two paintings: one was done by a 2-year-old and one by a painting master. Neither is performing anything, yet we will think of one as having more quality.

Ask that two year old's mother who she thinks did the best painting. Ask the two year old. The fact of the matter is, art appreciation, like all things, is based on personal tastes, opinion, and subjectivity.


If quality isn't getting better results then what is it? Dictionary.com was pretty vague if you ask me. If getting good results isn't
a high degree of excellence, then what is?

What is quality? It's opinion.

No, I don't think my belief is subjective: it's either objectively true or objectively false.

That's rather subjective of you.

And I don't see any problem with hinging a definition of quality on either an external Judge or an external standard of quality: this is no problem for me or anyone else who already believes in an external God and an external standard of morality.

Ah. This is a good one. Rather like God/morals argument. The common criticism is that you have no way of knowing what God thinks is "good quality" or "bad quality," outside of the Bible, which we all know to not be the most reliable source of informtaion going.

Then the movie has no intrinsic quality, if it can vary from person to person. What you're talking about is a person's opinion of a movie - not the movie itself.

Exactly, but what makes a movie good? Is there one factor that makes a movie "better than the rest"? I mean, some people might like sex in their movies; other might not. If I, therefore, crammed a movie with hardcore porn and gave it to two different people, there's no saying which of them will think it is "good quality," and which will think it is "bad quality." How can you say, objectively, that one movie is better than another? It's just a film recording that stimulates your eyes and ears; how can ther

 

You would declare the £5000 one the winner, right? But how, therefore, do you account for people who prefer black and white televisions? I mean, it seems like a ridiculous question, but you might find sharper, coloured, clearer television good, but there's nothing generically GOOD about it, right?

Like I said, the value of the performance is subjective but the acutal comparison is not. The clear picture, sharpness etc would define that as quality. As for how much you care about those things is personal choice. BTW a color TV can be turned into a black and white

 

Quality is like beauty, In the eye of the beholder.

 

TheScarletBanner: What is quality? It's opinion.

I disagree somewhat. Quality is not purely opinion.

FS: What if I have two paintings: one was done by a 2-year-old and one by a painting master. Neither is performing anything, yet we will think of one as having more quality.

TSB: Ask that two year old's mother who she thinks did the best painting. Ask the two year old. The fact of the matter is, art appreciation, like all things, is based on personal tastes, opinion, and subjectivity.

If I had a two-year-old son, you bet I'd hang his picture up and toss the painting. I'd be proud of his work. However, I still think the 'professional' painting has more quality, it strives for further excellence. The painting has more beauty, is more artistic, and has a better standard of excellense. This is merely because the artist has had more experience and study (and possibly talent) than my two-year-old. Just because I prefer my son's painting, doesn't mean I think it has more quality.

You have two pieces of paper, with your work on it. One is marked with a (D), the other with an (A+). You realise that the (D) will get you in trouble, you also realise that the (A+) will be beneficial for you. That is a fair assumption, and I'll agree with that.

Assume neither paper is marked with and 'A' or a 'D'. They are not your papers, nor those of anyone you know. You merely poll people as to which paper they consider better or having more quality. More people than not will agree that the 'A' paper is better.

If quality were purely subjective, we'd expect more variety. Take a whole bunch of papers and ask people to grade them on quality. There will be the odd person out, but I'm willing to bet more people than not will choose the same paper as having a higher quality.
If we had 9 unmarked 'D' papers, and 1 unmarked 'A' paper, and most people agreed that the 'A' paper had more quality, then wouldn't there be an aspect of quality that we agree on and it's not purely subjective and a matter of taste?

Or it could indicate that intrinsic quality doesn't exist, and it is purely a tag of human invention that we apply to things we find personally pleasing?

That is a good question. If intrinsic quality exists, then quality must have an objective aspect. If it doesn't exist, then it is purely subjective. So the question is, which?


tenorjedi: Like I said, the value of the performance is subjective but the acutal comparison is not.

The function of a tv is to show a moving picture. If it performs that function with excellence, I'd say it has quality. If it is grainy and breaks a month after using it, I'd say it has poor quality.
Whether you like black&white or color is your preference. It is not directly related to quality. And yes, 2 tvs can be compared to see which is 'better' (i.e. performs its function with more excellence).

 

Fitness for use does not necessarily mean quality. Take art. A chair is smashed up and broken, left in a room. It is, according to the artist, a picture of 'rage in modern suburbia.' Another chair is left standing. The artist says it was a leftover. Now, someone who appreciates the significance of the first chair might say that it was better quality than the second. However, according to Dr. Juran, the second one would be better quality because it was more "fit for use."

Ahh, but how do you decide if it is fit for use? You could have a hammer that does an excellent job of hammering nails (or readjusting attitudes ), but it is not fit to be used as a screwdriver. The product itself does not decide the quality. You also need to consider the use to which it is planning to be put.

In the case of art, it has several uses. One is to be asthetically pleasing to the viewer. Another is to convey a message. If those are the uses to which you are planning to put the broken chair, then perhaps it is high quality.

The same with "conformance to the requirements." The "requirements" differ from person to person, from object to object.

Both Demming and Juran (as well as Philip Crosby, the other "Quality Guru") are very clear that the requirements are according to what the customer wants. After all, if the customer's requirements are not met, you aren't going to sell very much, are you?

Quality is a very customer-driven field to study. I can make the best widgets in the universe, but if they do not meet my customer's needs, they are worthless. Ultimately, Quality is about learning how to meet the customer's needs in the most efficient way possible.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball_Kinnison: Quality is a very customer-driven field to study. I can make the best widgets in the universe, but if they do not meet my customer's needs, they are worthless. Ultimately, Quality is about learning how to meet the customer's needs in the most efficient way possible.

You're arguing quality from a business standpoint which is probably more realistic than a purely philesophical standpoint.

Then if the customer determines use (and hence quality), then to the manufacturer quality is subjective based on the customer. To the customer, however, quality is objective because it is based on his need for it to perform something.

I'm going to look into your links. Very intruiging

 

Like I said, the value of the performance is subjective but the acutal comparison is not. The clear picture, sharpness etc would define that as quality. As for how much you care about those things is personal choice. BTW a color TV can be turned into a black and white

No, it would define it as a sharper, clearer picture. It is a purely human, subjective, thing to say that "sharper and clearer is quality." Sharper and clearer are actually in existence, however, quality, as a measure of them, is not.

Quality is like beauty, In the eye of the beholder.

That's my point!

I disagree somewhat. Quality is not purely opinion.

You can't just say that and not back it up. I respect your opinion, but I'd expect you to expand on it a little beyond "this is the way it is."

If I had a two-year-old son, you bet I'd hang his picture up and toss the painting.

Ok...

However, I still think the 'professional' painting has more quality, it strives for further excellence.

That's a personal opinion. The painer striving for excellence can, in some cases, for some art appreciaters, turn them off that particular painting. Just because a person puts more effort into it, and it's more aesthetically pleasing, and the critics love it more, does that necessarily make it higher quality? No. It's in the eyes of the beholder. You might define quality as innocence in painting; quality as a painting which doesn't try to be good, but just IS, in your opinion. In which case, you'd go for the kid's picture.

The painting has more beauty, is more artistic,

"Beauty," "artistic" - these are all still opinions. In reality, all the painting is, in its simplest form, is blobs of paint on a canvas, arranged in a particular way that is pleasing to you aesthetically and artistically. There is no one arrangement which is automatically better "quality" - that is a factor which can not be expressed by things like paint and canvas.

This is merely because the artist has had more experience and study (and possibly talent) than my two-year-old. Just because I prefer my son's painting, doesn't mean I think it has more quality.

OK. I don't think I'm communicating my argument well enough here. I'll try again.

The artist and the two year old child, I'm sure you'll agree, have equal merits as humans. Both canvasses are, in all respects, equal. Their paints, equal. Both proceed to start painting, and when they finish, critics appraise them. Now, when you look at them, what is the EXACT thing that makes you decide one is better quality? The arrangement of paint on the canvas, obviously. It is pleasing to YOUR eye. However, another critic may find the other painting EQUALLY pleasing, if not more so, for entirely different reasons. Now, one is not inherently better quality than the other - one is only better quality in opinion.

A non-sentient object, or even a sentient one for that matter, is entirely capable of possessing the quality of "good" or "bad." That's allocated by humans.

Imagine two small rocks sitting in a hole in the middle of the Sahara Desert, at least 100 miles from any position a human has ever been near. These rocks have never, and will never, be seen by human eyes. One is jagged and dirty quartz; the other is a round, perfect, shining piece of shale. So, which one is better quality? Neither. The rocks can't decide for themselves which is better quality - neither can the sand around them, nor the desert lizards that pass by. For all intents and purposes, they are just two rocks, sitting there, minding their own business. Now, a human stumbles along and picks them both up. She marvels at finding two such out-of-place rocks, but is overcome with artistic appreciation of the shale, which, as is close as possible for human comprehension, perfect. In her opinion, it's better quality. However, the sand doesn't agree. Neither does the desert lizards or the rock itself. In fact, they can't, but that's besides the point. To them, and to the rest of the natural world, it's j

 

Ender:

No, I don't think my belief is subjective: it's either objectively true or objectively false

Isn't that a subjective position based off your own perceived objectivity? I don't think you're objective, which I wouldn't define as an objective truth or objective falsehood. I'd say I subjectively think you're subjective!

(Ain't postmodernism a beeeeatch?)

Actually postmodernism reminds me of nothing more than a child who keeps repeating the same nonsense and thinks he clever while doing so.

Look: I think "2+2=4." Either I am actually right or actually wrong. The alternative - that I'm only right from a certain point of view - is absurd.

I think there is a God. Again, either I'm right or I'm not. CERTAINLY, people's behavior is partially determined by their beliefs on this subject, but that doesn't mean that both camps are simultaneously right. Either one camp is right, OR the other.

Centuries ago, most Europeans thought the Sun revolved around the Earth; now we think the opposite. The position of the planets didn't suddenly change when we changed our collective minds, and ONE of the two opinions is actually right.

Denying all this doesn't strike me as the least bit clever.


Scarlet, you too need to read the above; you say this comment is "rather subjective" of me, but you don't give a reasonable explanation of why.

I'd take it you think there ARE no objective truths. Therefore, you think "2+2=4" is not an objective truth. Tell me, how can "2+2=4" be subjective? How can it POSSIBLY be simultaneously true and false?


Ah. This is a good one. Rather like God/morals argument. The common criticism is that you have no way of knowing what God thinks is "good quality" or "bad quality," outside of the Bible, which we all know to not be the most reliable source of informtaion going.

After two thousand years, there's yet to be a convincing argument that what's written from an eyewitness perspective (particularly, the New Testament) is unreliable.

At any rate, I disagree: I believe men have an intrinsic (albeit imperfect) awareness of moral truth and artistic quality. If these truths were ACTUALLY purely subjective, then people would come up with drastically different standards. Instead, the VAST majority of people think murder is wrong and order is more artistic than chaos.


Well, how do you know that God didn't have artistic pride, and decided that the Earth was pretty snazzy, because he made it? I mean, what if another Supreme Being came along and thought it was crap? You're right, though; it won't convince those who put no trust in the book. Considering the minority of the world's population actually do, I don't see this as any kind of objective or external measure of quality.

You wouldn't see anything as objective, but look at what you have to do to discredit my theory: assume that God is not omniscient (that He doesn't literally know everything) or that God is not unique - in other words, that God is not God.

That strikes me as a weak argument.


That just means that people thing one movie is better quality. I don't see what you mean by this. Just because people argue about it doesn't mean that it's in existence.

Which is why I called it an indication, not a proof. I just think it worth noting that people don't argue favorite colors, but they do argue great films - as if a thing like "greatness" does indeed exist.


I think there is proof. Look at a film on its most basic level. It is a mixture of light and sound patterns, formed into some kind of coherent structure, correct? Now, I'm sure you'll agree that light and sound are not inherently "good" or "bad"? I mean, it's all the same thing at the most basic level, rigt? So, just because it's formed into a pattern that YOU find pleasing, does that suddenly make said light and sound itself, or even the entire pattern "good quality" or "bad"?

By that definition, a human action is nothing more than a chemical rea

 

Well, that just proves my point. "Fit for use," as a definition, is itself subjective, as you've just pointed out.

No, it is not subjective. It is quite objective. It is "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" and "based on observable phenomena; presented factually". The only thing is that it is based on requirements given. The study of Quality is quite objective, requiring a firm basis in statistical analysis and process improvement.

Ok, say a person looks at both of those afforementioned chairs. Her legs are tired and she wants to sit down - that's her requirement. For her requirements, the unbroken chair would be the best bet, right? Right! So, where does quality come into that? Efficiency? Yes. Suitability? Yes. Quality? This is an entirely different attribute.

Quality is a summation of the all the requirements for an object. It is not a single attribute.

You're assuming quality has anything the hell to do with business, for one. Second, you're also assuming that efficiency and suitability are the same as quality, which I swear that they are not. Efficiency and suitability are tangible attributes; quality is a human-made attribute which refers to personal taste.

Take a look at ASQ's website and then tell me that Quality has nothing to do with business. It has everything to do with business.

Second, I never said that efficiency and suitability are the same as quality. They are components of quailty. That is like saying that an arm is a person. It is part of a person.

Third, Quailty does not depend upon personal taste, but the specific requirements for a job. For example, a material meant to be used in space breaks down when used underwater. Does that mean that it lacks Quality? Is it then unsuitable for use in space? Not at all.

Quality is simply a measure of how well an item meets its requirements. A Quality paper is one that meets the requirements (assignment) given. A Quality program is one that fulfills the needs of its user. A Quailty widget is one that does its job.

That is a completely objective principle.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: You cannot discuss Quality without providing a reference to the requirements needed. The two are interrelated. You can be subjective about setting the requirements, but Quality is still an objective principle compared to the requirements.

 

Scarlet, you too need to read the above; you say this comment is "rather subjective" of me, but you don't give a reasonable explanation of why.


I'd take it you think there ARE no objective truths. Therefore, you think "2+2=4" is not an objective truth. Tell me, how can "2+2=4" be subjective? How can it POSSIBLY be simultaneously true and false?

Ok. What makes you think two plus two equals four? You pick up two coconuts. You pick up another two coconuts. You now have four, right? How can you prove, entirely, that the sum total will always come to four? You can't. You can sit there doing it for eternity, yet you can never conclusively prove that sooner or later 2+2 wont equal five. How do you know that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5 to somebody else? I mean, some people might consider that absurd, but it's a serious question. You are absolutely positive, in your mind, that 2+2 equals four, come hell or high water. What if I thought otherwise, and when I picked up two coconuts, and another three, and it came to five, I said that I'd only picked up two coconuts the second time?

Ah. This is a good one. Rather like God/morals argument. The common criticism is that you have no way of knowing what God thinks is "good quality" or "bad quality," outside of the Bible, which we all know to not be the most reliable source of informtaion going.

After two thousand years, there's yet to be a convincing argument that what's written from an eyewitness perspective (particularly, the New Testament) is unreliable.

Well, considering said people existed 2,000 years ago, then there's no way to test their validity. Furthermore, if I wrote a book in which I claimed to see a man walk on water and turn water into wine, I'd be dismissed as a lunatic. What's so different about these so-called eyewitnesses?

At any rate, I disagree: I believe men have an intrinsic (albeit imperfect) awareness of moral truth and artistic quality.

I believe differently. I believe that all people, not just men (joking, joking, I know what you meant ), can decide what is more moral for them in a certain situation. However, that makes it subjective.

If these truths were ACTUALLY purely subjective, then people would come up with drastically different standards. Instead, the VAST majority of people think murder is wrong and order is more artistic than chaos.

But does that make them right? Well, no. Most of Germany supported Adolf Hitler at one point, but did that make THEM right? Well, I'm sure you know my answer to that.

You wouldn't see anything as objective, but look at what you have to do to discredit my theory: assume that God is not omniscient (that He doesn't literally know everything) or that God is not unique - in other words, that God is not God.

That strikes me as a weak argument.

Ok. Let's assume that God is real, unique and omniscient. How can you interpret what he thinks is moral?

By that definition, a human action is nothing more than a chemical reaction acting on a physical world. Does that mean there's no such thing as moral and immoral acts? NOPE.

It means that there's no such thing as intrinsically moral or immoral act. Crimes like murder and rape I find appalling, but I will accept that that's just my opinion, and the Lord High and Mighty hasn't come down to declare them Good or Bad without a shadow of a doubt.

The reality is that most people across cultures agree on the broad strokes of what is good and what is evil.

I know. Some things seem generally repugnant. That doesn't make them so,

And what are you doing saying gravity is immutable? In the nonsensical world of subjectivism, isn't THAT even dependent on one's point of view?

Well, yeah, but that's besides the point. I wasn't trying to prove the existence of gravity, I was trying to show something that you might perceive as an immutable truth.

Sorry, me adding "I believe" doesn't make my arguments any more or less prone to criticism as "subjective." If I said "There is..." yo

 

OMG! All these long posts ...

TheScarletBanner: You can't just say that and not back it up. I respect your opinion, but I'd expect you to expand on it a little beyond "this is the way it is."

I completely agree with that except I thought my arguments below it backed up my statement. Forgive me if they didn't.

"Beauty," "artistic" - these are all still opinions. In reality, all the painting is, in its simplest form, is blobs of paint on a canvas, arranged in a particular way that is pleasing to you aesthetically and artistically. There is no one arrangement which is automatically better "quality" - that is a factor which can not be expressed by things like paint and canvas.

So then you're saying that the two pencil lines that I just drew in 2 seconds are no worse or better in quality than the master painting that took 30 years to make? But I'll drop the artisitic thing. Art is indeed a very subjective area. I'll stick to function.

Imagine two small rocks sitting in a hole in the middle of the Sahara Desert, at least 100 miles from any position a human has ever been near. These rocks have never, and will never, be seen by human eyes. One is jagged and dirty quartz; the other is a round, perfect, shining piece of shale. So, which one is better quality? Neither.

Exactely. Neither. Why would rocks have quality? Rocks are a part of nature, and not man-made. IMHO, we can't assign or discern the quality that exists in nature's objects. Quality is based on man-made objects and ideas.

Ah, but that doesn't make it objective. That means that there's a lot of subjective opinions, nothing more.

True, it could be a large number of subjective opions. But since there are so many more opinions in favor of one paper over the other, could it not be possible that the paper has more of an intrinsic quality that people are discerning?

I walk up to one of the villagers, and, speaking his language for whatever reason, I ask him what he thinks about rape. To him, and the rest of the village - in fact, of all the people he knows - rape is a certain inherent right for men

Hmmm, interesting point. Makes me wonder if there is such a thing as cultural subjectivity. (agreeing within the culture that something is 'good', 'bad', 'having high quality'). But that still doesn't equal objectivity.

But have you ever walked into a single village where rape was accepted and embraced? It's a theoretical illustration that may or may not have a place in reality.

*laughs* No! This just means that it can perform its function with excellence. To tag on top of that "quality" is to give it an attribute which you have no business giving to a television.

Then I think our problem lies in our definitions of quality. If something is performing its function with excellence, I say it has quality. You don't. You're saying it's opinion. It's a matter of definition there. Debating further might not do any good if we don't agree on the definition of quality.

Um, I don't know about that. I'd say that philosophy offers the best answer to this question than business. I think it's more realistic, too; the argument of quality can't be expressed the same in business as it can in philosophy.

Realistic was probably the wrong word for me to use. Practical would have been better. The use of quality in the business (real-world) sense, is more practical than theoretical philosophical arguments. But I have no problems with debating either.

But you see, a piece of wood itself can't possess this quality. Wood is not good, wood is not bad; wood is indifferent.

Like my argument before, a natural object does not have quality, IMHO. However, if you were to chop it up and sell it as firewood, you may just have high-quality firewood (depending on the type, age, and moisture).

Kimball_Kinnison: Quality is a summation of the all the requirements for an object. It is not a single attribute.

Very well put. Quality is something that an object as a whole poss