Subjective Morality

[The Tanager]

I started this post out of another discussion with Divine Insight. DI has made some arguments for morality being subjective. I'm still trying to get the terminology straight.

If morality is not absolute, then it can only be subjective. A matter of opinion.

We need to get our terms straight when talking about our human morality. I agree with you concerning 'subjective' being a matter of opinion. Objective, then, would mean not being a matter of opinion. Just like the shape of the earth is not a matter of opinion. X is good or bad for everyone.

Absolute vs. situational is a sub-issue concerning objectivism. The absolutist would say X is good or bad for everyone (and thus objectivism) no matter the situation. The situationalist would say X is good or bad for everyone but qualified by the situation.

In this phrasing, morality can be objectivist without being absolute. Now, I don't care if these are the terms we agree upon or not, but there must be some term for each concept I've presented. If you want to use "absolute" for "objective" above, that's fine. But you've got to tell me what two terms you want to use for what I termed the "absolute vs. situational" sub-issue.

[The Tanager]

I did not respond to every particular point. This was not to avoid anything. I think I've addressed everything that needs to be addressed, but if you disagree I welcome you to bring it back and try another way to show how it is an important piece I'm missing in my response.

Why does that matter when you would just stop at "I like X1" plus "I like X2" plus "I like X3" where X = X1 + X2 + X3? What more insight would you gain if you were to push for an extra step and find out that I like X2 because it has the feature X21 and X22 where I like these features? It's just a whole lot more of "I like's" and eventually we would inescapably stop at "I just X221 because I just like X221."

It wouldn't matter...if we were only interested in answering why we have the specific tastes we have, but I'm not addressing that issue. Analyzing more deeply may show us thinking/acting in inconsistent ways.

Because you pointed out the difference in features between rap and classical music in explaining why we treat them different, yet spoke of personal expression of making music and abusing a child as if they should be treated the same.

In rap music, classical music, impressionist painting, etc. it would not matter if we were the only person in existence or not. When talking about personal expression this changes, it requires the involvement of another person who has their own likes and dislikes. Now we aren't only dealing with your personal dislike of action X, but also your personal like/dislike of other people who personally like action X.

This is where the objectivism vs. subjectivism issue is at. How are we to react to those who want to perform an action we don't have a personal taste for?

In issues of math and science we react to those who want to follow their own personal likes (believing and teaching wrong mathematical and scientific facts) by taking away that freedom to personally express their own personal tastes/likes/beliefs. This is because we believe there is something more than just subjective beliefs, we believe there is an objective truth.

In issues of aesthetics we react to those who want to follow their own personal likes (liking rap music) by allowing them freedom to personally express their own personal tastes. This is because we believe there is nothing more than just subjective beliefs, we don't believe there is an objective taste all humans should have.

How do we react in issues of ethics?

Here you separate the two above things out, as though we are only talking about ourselves in the first way I described a few paragraphs up, where it would not matter if we were the only person in existence or not. In separating things in this way you are reframing the discussion in a way that objectivism could never be reached. You've either begged the objectivism vs. subjectivism question or reverted the discussion back to simple subjectivism, which I agree with you on.

Yes. In the same way, I tune to another station because it goes against my subjective taste (i.e. that I don't like focus on beats over melody) in the matter. What is the difference here beyond the superficial?

What you personally do with a child is analogous to what radio station you listen to. What you personally do with someone who wants to abuse a child on their own time is analogous to what you personally do with someone who wants to listen to rap music on their own time.

Why don't you abuse a child? Because you don't like kids being harmed.
Why don't you allow others to abuse a child? Because you don't like kids being harmed.

Why don't you keep the radio stationed where it is at? Because you don't like rap music.
Why do you allow others to listen to the same radio station? It's not because you don't like rap music.

There is obviously something different between aesthetics and ethics. Otherwise, we wouldn't have these different answers.

[The Tanager]

There is a consensus even now that the earth appears to be flat from one vantage point. This appearance does not correspond to objective fact, but it is a perception that we can still agree on. In that it has a degree of reality on its own. In my view morality is something similar. If we stick to subjectivity, we can say something is right or wrong because we have similar intuitions about it, the same way humans have a common perception of red qualia, even when that qualia is limited to human cognition, and not strictly speaking objective.

So morality is the majority agreed-upon perceptions of reality? If I understand you correctly, then what if one does not share that majority perception?

[Dimmesdale]

There is a consensus even now that the earth appears to be flat from one vantage point. This appearance does not correspond to objective fact, but it is a perception that we can still agree on. In that it has a degree of reality on its own. In my view morality is something similar. If we stick to subjectivity, we can say something is right or wrong because we have similar intuitions about it, the same way humans have a common perception of red qualia, even when that qualia is limited to human cognition, and not strictly speaking objective.

So morality is the majority agreed-upon perceptions of reality? If I understand you correctly, then what if one does not share that majority perception?

I would argue that, on the basis of human nature, we are all the same. Our subjectivity is determined by our human essence (which isn't infinitely malleable, per Sartre), and so I would argue that all healthy human agents DO in fact share the same basic intuitions about morality (though of course, things like delusive thinking and mental illness may cloud our better judgments). These moral intuitions are therefore universal and factual, but they do not have to be objective.

[Bust Nak]

It wouldn't matter...if we were only interested in answering why we have the specific tastes we have, but I'm not addressing that issue. Analyzing more deeply may show us thinking/acting in inconsistent ways.

How? At the very best you would be able show that I have inconsistent taste, something along the lines of "you like vanilla more than chocolate in ice-cream but not when it comes to pancake source." Analysing my taste cannot show how I act inconsistent with my taste.

In rap music, classical music, impressionist painting, etc. it would not matter if we were the only person in existence or not. When talking about personal expression this changes, it requires the involvement of another person who has their own likes and dislikes. Now we aren't only dealing with your personal dislike of action X, but also your personal like/dislike of other people who personally like action X.

This is where the objectivism vs. subjectivism issue is at. How are we to react to those who want to perform an action we don't have a personal taste for?

Again, who is this we? You deal with ethics like you do with science and math. I don't.

In issues of math and science I react to those who want to follow their own personal likes (believing and teaching wrong mathematical and scientific facts) by taking away that freedom to personally express their own personal tastes/likes/beliefs. This is because of my personal like/dislike of other people who personally like action X.

In issues of aesthetics I react to those who want to follow their own personal likes (liking rap music) by allowing them freedom to personally express their own personal tastes. This is because of my personal like/dislike of other people who personally like action X.

In issues of ethics I react to those who want to follow their own personal likes (liking child abuse) by taking away that freedom to personally express their own personal tastes/likes/beliefs. This is because of my personal like/dislike of other people who personally like action X.

There isn't any fundamental difference between how I act with math, science, aesthetics or ethics when it comes to dealing with how people act.

Here you separate the two above things out, as though we are only talking about ourselves in the first way I described a few paragraphs up, where it would not matter if we were the only person in existence or not.

Sure, so far so good...

In separating things in this way you are reframing the discussion in a way that objectivism could never be reached. You've either begged the objectivism vs. subjectivism question...

… Not sure what you are saying here. If you think I am presuming subjectivism to disprove objectivism, then I have not done that. I have yet to argue against objectivism so far, all I've done is address your challenges against subjectivism.

What you personally do with a child is analogous to what radio station you listen to. What you personally do with someone who wants to abuse a child on their own time is analogous to what you personally do with someone who wants to listen to rap music on their own time.

Agreed, so far so good.

Why don't you abuse a child? Because you don't like kids being harmed.

That's not it. I don't abuse children because I don't like abusing children. It's not fun for me.

Why don't you allow others to abuse a child? Because you don't like kids being harmed.

Sure.

Why don't you keep the radio stationed where it is at? Because you don't like rap music.

Yep. It's not good music to me.

Why do you allow others to listen to the same radio station? It's not because you don't like rap music.

It's because I do like rap music being listened to. Just as it's not because I don't like abusing children that I don't allow others to abuse a child.

There is an obvious parallel between aesthetics and ethics. See how they have the same kind of answers?

I don't like abusing children matches I don't like listening to rap music;
I don't like kids being harmed matches I do like rap music being listened to.

[The Tanager]

Again, who is this we? You deal with ethics like you do with science and math. I don't.

In issues of math and science I react to those who want to follow their own personal likes (believing and teaching wrong mathematical and scientific facts) by taking away that freedom to personally express their own personal tastes/likes/beliefs. This is because of my personal like/dislike of other people who personally like action X.

In issues of aesthetics I react to those who want to follow their own personal likes (liking rap music) by allowing them freedom to personally express their own personal tastes. This is because of my personal like/dislike of other people who personally like action X.

In issues of ethics I react to those who want to follow their own personal likes (liking child abuse) by taking away that freedom to personally express their own personal tastes/likes/beliefs. This is because of my personal like/dislike of other people who personally like action X.

There isn't any fundamental difference between how I act with math, science, aesthetics or ethics when it comes to dealing with how people act.

You still aren't going deep enough in your explanations. You can stop at "I like classical music" but this is incomplete and probably wrong in some cases. So, you go further and say that you like certain melodies, rhythms, instruments, whatever. Thus we know more about your personal likes/dislikes.

Here you are doing the equivalent of stopping at "I like allowing people personal freedom in aesthetics but not ethics, mathematics, or science." You are saying "I like X because I like X and dislike Y because I dislike Y." All that statement really does is say "I like X and dislike Y." It's simple subjectivism and I agree with you at that level.

But what is it about aesthetics that you like people expressing those personal likes freely but not their ethical, mathematical, and scientific personal likes freely? Yes, your desires there are different, but why? This is the fundamental difference between between how you act that I'm trying to understand.

Why don't you abuse a child? Because you don't like kids being harmed.

That's not it. I don't abuse children because I don't like abusing children. It's not fun for me.

But why don't you like abusing children? Why is it not fun for you? Again, I'm not asking why is that your like versus liking to abuse children. I'm asking for the "melody, rhythm, etc." kind of deeper explanation. Is it not because you don't like kids experiencing harm?

[The Tanager]

I would argue that, on the basis of human nature, we are all the same. Our subjectivity is determined by our human essence (which isn't infinitely malleable, per Sartre), and so I would argue that all healthy human agents DO in fact share the same basic intuitions about morality (though of course, things like delusive thinking and mental illness may cloud our better judgments). These moral intuitions are therefore universal and factual, but they do not have to be objective.

So, if one does not share the majority perception, then something in them is unhealthy? I would largely agree, I think, and am wondering if we may mean different things by 'objective'. What do you think accounts for us having a shared human nature with these oughts hard wired in?

[Dimmesdale]

I would argue that, on the basis of human nature, we are all the same. Our subjectivity is determined by our human essence (which isn't infinitely malleable, per Sartre), and so I would argue that all healthy human agents DO in fact share the same basic intuitions about morality (though of course, things like delusive thinking and mental illness may cloud our better judgments). These moral intuitions are therefore universal and factual, but they do not have to be objective.

So, if one does not share the majority perception, then something in them is unhealthy? I would largely agree, I think, and am wondering if we may mean different things by 'objective'. What do you think accounts for us having a shared human nature with these oughts hard wired in?

Why I believe this, I'm not sure. It just makes sense to me that human beings have inherent moral capability and dignity - and that this should stem from something ontologically inherent in us. I am not a Sartrean existentialist as I've said and I believe there is such a thing as a human essence.

An account would be, perhaps, that we are image bearers of God, if one looks at it through the Christian lens. We mirror something ontologically greater, and that's how we justify our dignity, etc. Although, I suppose Christianity would subscribe to objective morality or moral realism, which as I've pointed out, I'm iffy about. But that could tie into what you believe, perhaps.

Something in someone who does not share our common moral intuitions would not only be unhealthy, it would be anti-human and anti-moral, and morality is inextricably tied to the human in a way that makes them interchangeable in a way.

[Bust Nak]

You still aren't going deep enough in your explanations. You can stop at "I like classical music" but this is incomplete and probably wrong in some cases. So, you go further and say that you like certain melodies, rhythms, instruments, whatever. Thus we know more about your personal likes/dislikes.

But it's still just my personal likes and dislikes. You may get to know me better, but that won't help you find inconsistences in my stances.

You are saying "I like X because I like X and dislike Y because I dislike Y." All that statement really does is say "I like X and dislike Y."

That's exactly it. I keep telling ya, there is no accounting for taste. I'm gonna refer you back to my earlier challenge, why do you like certain rhythm and sounds?

It's simple subjectivism and I agree with you at that level.

But what about the next level? That there is nothing beyond X other than I like X because I like X?

But what is it about aesthetics that you like people expressing those personal likes freely but not their ethical, mathematical, and scientific personal likes freely? Yes, your desires there are different, but why? This is the fundamental difference between between how you act that I'm trying to understand.

I don't like people getting factual things incorrect because it harms us as a society however indirectly, people act on their beliefs. I like a society where harm is minimised.

I like people making music because it is harmless fun and does more good than bad by providing entertainment for many. I like a society where fun is maximised.

I don't like child abuse because it harms children. I like children being children.

Now what?

But why don't you like abusing children? Why is it not fun for you?

It does not engage my brain, there is no challenge and I don't like screaming and I don't like sad children.

I'm asking for the "melody, rhythm, etc." kind of deeper explanation. Is it not because you don't like kids experiencing harm?

Does sad children makes me sad count?

[The Tanager]

I still don't see how your view isn't what I've called simple subjectivism. We've tried different ways. Neither of us has changed their mind.

[The Tanager]

An account would be, perhaps, that we are image bearers of God, if one looks at it through the Christian lens. We mirror something ontologically greater, and that's how we justify our dignity, etc. Although, I suppose Christianity would subscribe to objective morality or moral realism, which as I've pointed out, I'm iffy about. But that could tie into what you believe, perhaps.

Could you explain in more detail the difference you see between 'objective' and your view of intersubjectivity? Earlier you compared 'objective' to a chicken sandwich. Obviously, lions don't make chicken sandwiches, but their lack of knowledge of what a chicken sandwich is does not mean that thing sitting in front of them (I don't know, a tourist dropped it at one point, whatever) is still a chicken sandwich. Is that the kind of thing you are getting at? That morality is not like that? So that, when a lion steals something from another lion, it's not an immoral act, but when a human performs the exact same act, it is stealing and immoral?

Or something else?