This statement is false.
The problem with arguing metaphysical conceits, based always on intangible theoretical opposites, is you can always wrap the thing into a conundrum, as you have done Yorick.
I think you guys have spent a little too much time thinking about how you think about the topic and arguing about how you argue the topic. You have lost the topic and entered the "let's define the brains interaction with metaphysical conceits" la-la land. Aren't you dizzy yet?
Look, perhaps there is no determination that looking at something objectively is "good." Perhaps you would seek to look at things objectively, as well as subjectively, in order to balance yourself. Anyway, since objective/subjective, good/bad, right/wrong, death/life are all pairs of metaphysical conceits, you can always wrap the conundrum if you like.