Objectivity is the act of observing and understanding facts and their place in reality without said observations and understandings depending upon the features of the observer. Though objectivity is highly prized, especially among scientists, journalists, and researchers, complete objectivity is unattainable. Even on a purely physical level, it is impossible to see an object without the view depending upon the features of the observer.
Take for example a child’s view of the ocean from the beach. The child’s view is limited first by his location. If he is looking out at the ocean from the beach, he is primarily experiencing the waves and tides of the ocean. He has no concept of the ocean’s size or its dynamics from an aerial view. A second limitation is that of the child’s own physical body. His visual comprehension of the height of the ocean’s waves and the length and breadth of the entire body of water is almost entirely dependent on its size in relation to that of his own body. Third, the child’s view of the ocean is affected by his eyesight. Depending on his age, his eyesight could be less developed than that of an adult’s, limiting how much of the ocean or the horizon he can actually see. He could be near-sighted or farsighted; he could be wearing sunglasses. His vision would even be affected by his eye colour, as light eyes are more easily affected by sunlight and ultraviolet rays than dark eyes. The child’s view of the ocean is completely dependent on his own features, and, by definition, not objective.
In addition to these physical limitations, all humans have mental and emotional limitations that prevent them from thinking, reasoning, or understanding anything completely objectively. Shumacher’s list of ideas (as quoted by Pepper) that shape environmentalist though are examples of these handicaps; if humans are raised on the theories of evolution, competition, and natural selection, these subconscious beliefs will in turn form their beliefs about science, the government, and even the basic nature of man, a process detailed by Lewontin. However, these limitations should not be viewed exclusively as handicaps. As Zinn suggests, biases can be acceptable. He describes his own bias as “holding fast to certain fundamental values—the equal rights of all human beings…to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness.” This bias gives direction to his work and studies, as well as providing a purpose for his life: righting the wrongs and inequalities in the world. Each person’s system of beliefs includes a sense of a general purpose, and whether they believe so consciously or unconsciously, whether that purpose is self-serving or community-serving, logical or illogical, that purpose directs their opinions and actions.
Of course Pepper’s assertion that “having first made up our minds, frequently from an irrational base, about what we want, we all tend to look for ‘facts and figures’ to support our position” must also be taken into consideration. In that light, this entire essay is a collection of “facts and figures” supporting a belief already in place in my mind: the belief that pure objectivity is unattainable.
