Why I am Partisan


Professors often insist that in the name of being “objective” one has to write a paper that offers “both” sides of the issue. It is generally accepted today that to be “objective” about any political topic, one must give “both sides” a fair shot. In fact, this is a subjectivist stance.


Subjectivism by definition is the belief that truth is determined by human consciousness. It is the belief that right or wrong is judged solely by what people think. Objectivism on the other hand is the belief that truth is determined by reality. It is the belief that absolute truth is outside of humans (though humans must use their mind to come to that truth) and grounded in reality. Objectivists believe that what that truth is a law of reality, like the laws of physics, and is independent of what humans merely think.


Given that the definition of “objectivism” means that truth is determined by reality, there is a corollary to this statement. The corollary is that there is only one truth that is correct. The principles of reality remain constant. They are uniform throughout the universe. Thus, if 5 different objective scientists set out to study gravity, they are all going to conclude the same thing. They all are going to have the same single answer.


On the other hand, the definition of “subjectivism” is whatever a human thinks is correct is then correct. A subjectivist grounds truth in nothing more than what a scientist thinks. Thus, if 5 different subjective scientists went out to study gravity, it could easily happen that they come up with 5 different answers.


It should be heavily noted that objectivists will come up with one answer; subjectivists are likely to come up with many.


So when a student were writing a paper on any given thing, if one were to go about it objectively, and ground conclusions in reality (the definition of objectivism), one would only going to come up with one valid answer.


Not only do college professors want students to come up with more than one answer, they want both those answers to contradict themselves. One has to argue for black, and then one have to turn around and argue for white. This is subjectivism.


When a scientist writes a thesis on a topic, do they write a “fair and balanced” lab report? Are they forced to pick both sides, that evolution is both true and not true, and defend both stances? No, they absolutely do not. Yet, that is exactly what passes for being “objective” today.


In this day where famous news channels think in order to be objective one needs to be “fair and balanced,” it is difficult to convince people of what I am saying. I believe if one were to be objective about anything, from science to philosophy, they are only going to come up with one correct answer and all rational people who investigate the situation will come up with the same answer.


This is definitely a hard battle to win as people see things like morality, philosophy, and politics as having no one single correct answer. But the fact is they do. And, some people do understand this. In politics for example, many people realize that the free market cannot be cheated. This is an absolute objective truth about politics that, when ignored, produces undesirable consequences. There doesn’t need to be two sides of the debate argued, and two sides given equal credence. Socialism has undeniably been proven wrong and capitalism right. If one were to submit that just because a socialist thinks their stance is good, it is good, they are then becoming a subjectivist. Being objective does not mean giving equal merit to “both” sides of any issue (as if there are only two), it means coming to a correct, logically consistent, reality-bound single answer.



Amber Pawlik