Fallacy wherein subjective experience is interpreted as objective?

Is there a named fallacy wherein a person takes a subjective experience and labels it as the objective, representative experience for all persons?

For example, let's say that someone has the personal experience of being lost in the woods. Instead of saying: "I know my own experience of being lost in the woods," they claim that they definitively know what being lost in the woods feels like for anybody who has ever been lost in the woods .

Another example would be if a religious person claimed that they felt a connection to the divine, so such a thing must be the case for all people. In reality, their experience of a connection is personal and subjective and not necessarily felt by all persons.

Is there a name for this? It seems clear that such a person is taking their subjective experience out of scope and pushing it into the objective realm. There's an assumption of subjective experience being representative of all experiences for others (whether all persons or all persons in one's situation). It seems to involve the use of personal experience, faulty inductive reasoning, an improper recognition of the difference between the subjective and objective, and a presumption of one's own experience being representative for others.

Any ideas are greatly appreciated!
J.D.

I disagree completely with the above. IMOP, you need to be very careful (and much more precise) in labeling this kind of thing a Fallacy. It nay be more likely, depending on the circumstances, to be aptly labeled a BELIEF, based on personal experience. (I have expanded on this in prior LF posts, without refutation.)

The example I once used in a prior post to LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS was ‘jumping into the ocean and experiencing the resulting quality of water/wetness’ and voicing, i.e.., APPLYING THIS as a likely norm (i.e., as a BELIEF) to be experienced by others doing the same thing (while alternatively accepting the unlikely alternative prospect that one could instead experience this same action as ‘the burning fires of hell’.)

So, what differentiates an experienced–based BELIEF from a logical fallacy? In my view the proposition is straightforward: If phrased explicitly or implicitly as: “My Experience is X and based on this, I BELIEVE it applies to YOU (i.e., TO ALL) as well... This defines a BELIEF, and no logical fallacy is present. However, predicating this Belief on absolute certainty (more dicey) or upon unfolding events arising from it, opens the door to possible logical fallacy.

I believe the concept of the 'objective' is indeed misused in some arguments, but I am uncertain as to how this would be defined as a specific fallacy.

Theist apologists often describe God as the 'Objective Source' as the Creator of our physical existence. This argument at least goes back to Thomas Aquinas. The argument for the existence of God based on the necessity of an 'Objective Morality' as a basis for human morality is where one of the problems is concerning the misuse of 'objective.' Subjective Morality is than described a hypothetical arbitrary inconsistent morality that would pervade humanity if God did not exist, or be the standard of atheist and secular societies.

The reality is the morality of humanity is neither specifically 'objective' nor 'subjective' in terms of the source nor nature of morality. Morals and ethics are the social and cultural conventions that define human behavior and relationships. Morals and ethics may have objective and subjective attributes.