Question: What is your view or argument?

Answer: 
Taking the [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "Emergent Properties"](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/#EmeSub) as a starting point, and asserting that all subjective properties are identical to emergent properties, then we can take all the systems and substances which are not called "emergent" to be whatever's objective.

The article asserts that there may be no objects at all, other than "simple physical structures," that do not have an emergent component.\* Under my assertion, this means that pretty much everything has subjective parts and objective parts.

> 
> Talk of ["composite systems *lacking* emergent features"] is a convenient fiction suited to human perceptual and linguistic proclivities." (bracketed expression inserted by me)
> 
> 
> <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/#EmeSub>
> 
> 
> 

Under my assertion that subjectivity implies emergence and vice-versa, this means that anything that's not an atom has subjective qualities in addition to its objective qualities. This seems easily true, on the thought that not all things are the sums of their parts.

So I think that objective may be defined quite apart from subjective and not on a sliding scale. But it appears that there just aren't any things (other than simple ones like atoms) which are not compositions of their objective and subjective nature and properties.

> 
> \* Composite objects having ontologically emergent features appear to be truer unities than those lacking such features.
> 
> 
>
My childhood tutor in philosophy suggested that objectivity and subjectivity are a single spectrum. An attribute of the attributes that we assign objects. 
Its value on this spectrum might be estimated by how much we expect the attribute to vary from perspective to perspective.
Unfortunately, the assignment of objectivity/subjectivity of an attribute is subjective itself.
As a side note, the acknowledgment of any form of objectivity is always in question, as we have yet to define truly objective proofs even for things as seemingly concrete as mathematics.

Hope this helps, interesting question.