Bust Nak wrote:That's not it, you have one major misconception in your understanding. Subjectivism proper say that whether something is good or bad depends on whether it matches a person's opinion/tastes or not. So, the proper subjectivist would say that child abuse goes against my taste but is neither good nor bad in itself, it's only good or bad relative to me. The 'that person' mentioned above is the moral agent evaluating the child abuse, which is not necessarily the one who is performing the child abuse (although it can be.)
Again, 'proper subjectivism' seems trivial. Of course we think what is good/bad to us matches our opinion of what good/bad is. It could be no other way. That does not address the issue objectivism talks about.
I still see an inconsistency. While you state nothing is good or bad in itself, you are still acting as though something is good or bad in itself in regards to ethical concerns but not aesthetic ones.
Rap music is bad to you. Even though it is bad to you, you will allow other people to do this bad to you thing because it is good in their opinion and will bring them joy, etc. That is acting as though rap music is not good or bad in itself.
Child abuse is bad to you. Even though it is bad to you, you will not allow (if in your power) other people to do this bad to you thing even though it is good in their opinion and will bring them joy, etc. That is acting as though child abuse is bad in itself because it doesn't matter what the other person's opinion is on the thing, whereas the other person's opinion is a part of personal expression in aesthetics.
You will rephrase this, however, to say something like:
"Rap music is bad to me. Even though it is bad to me, I will allow other people to do this bad to me thing because
allowing other people to do bad to me things when it's not an ethical issue is a good to me thing. Therefore, rap music is bad to me and allowing others to listen and make rap music is good to me. See, I'm consistent here.
Child abuse is bad to me. Even though it is bad to me, I will not allow (if in my power) other people to do this bad to me thing because
allowing other people to do bad to me things in ethical situations is a bad to me thing. Therefore, child abuse is bad to me and allowing others to commit child abuse is bad to me. See, I'm consistent here."
But this rephrasing is trivial. Of course what is good/bad to you matches your opinion of what good/bad is. It could be no other way. That does not address the issue objectivism talks about.