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.

[Bust Nak]

You seem to be saying that "It is better to not abuse a child," is a statement whose truth depends on Bust Nak's personal opinion. You, the person making this statement, believes it is true for yourself as well as for other people (whether they share your opinion or not).

That does not appear to be a coherent statement. Think food taste. When I say vanilla ice-cream is better than chocolate, what does it even mean to say it's true for other people? Everybody like vanilla-cream better? That's clearly false, some likes chocolate more. "Bust Nak likes vanilla-cream better" regardless of who is evaluating that statement?

So, you think that the thing that makes this statement true for me is independent of my mind (and, therefore, objective to me).

Again, you are not part of the picture. It makes no sense to say this statement true for you.

You also think that the thing that makes this statement true for you is not independent of your mind (and, therefore, subjective or relative to you).

Yep.

[The Tanager]

You seem to be saying that "It is better to not abuse a child," is a statement whose truth depends on Bust Nak's personal opinion. You, the person making this statement, believes it is true for yourself as well as for other people (whether they share your opinion or not).

That does not appear to be a coherent statement. Think food taste. When I say vanilla ice-cream is better than chocolate, what does it even mean to say it's true for other people? Everybody like vanilla-cream better? That's clearly false, some likes chocolate more. "Bust Nak likes vanilla-cream better" regardless of who is evaluating that statement?

Again, you are not part of the picture. It makes no sense to say this statement true for you.

It is true for everyone that "Bust Nak likes vanilla ice-cream better than chocolate." It is false for everyone that "everyone likes vanilla ice cream better." It is true for everyone that "Bust Nak likes people following their aesthetic tastes as long as it doesn't harm anyone." It is true for everyone that "Bust Nak dislikes anyone abusing a child." It is false for everyone that "everyone dislikes anyone abusing a child." It is true for everyone that "Bust Nak does not like people following their ethical tastes (for instance, a desire to abuse a child) if it harms someone else. These are all claims of simple subjectivism that objectivists agree with.

But you say you are going past these simple statements about peoples' likes and dislikes. What extra are you saying? You've said that you are also saying "not abusing a child is better" but it's still unclear to me how that is not synonymous with one of the statements above, especially since you are saying that the other person committing the action is not a part of the picture.

[Bust Nak]

But you say you are going past these simple statements about peoples' likes and dislikes. What extra are you saying?

Again, think food taste, given that food taste is subjective, what is the statement saying beyond "Bust Nak likes vanilla over chocolate?" It's tagging on the extra bits: taste's all there is to it, one is not correct or incorrect for liking vanilla over chocolate, it's saying "vanilla is objectively better than chocolate" is an incoherent statement.

[The Tanager]

Again, think food taste, given that food taste is subjective, what is the statement saying beyond "Bust Nak likes vanilla over chocolate?" It's tagging on the extra bits: taste's all there is to it, one is not correct or incorrect for liking vanilla over chocolate, it's saying "vanilla is objectively better than chocolate" is an incoherent statement.

But that's an extra bit that doesn't affect you at all. You say it is a truth, but it's truth doesn't change anything about how you act, right?

[Bust Nak]

But that's an extra bit that doesn't affect you at all. You say it is a truth, but it's truth doesn't change anything about how you act, right?

Right, it doesn't change how I act because I already act like taste is subjective, I already act like vanilla is better than chocolate when I select which ice-cream to buy. Not sure what you are getting at here.

[The Tanager]

But that's an extra bit that doesn't affect you at all. You say it is a truth, but it's truth doesn't change anything about how you act, right?

Right, it doesn't change how I act because I already act like taste is subjective, I already act like vanilla is better than chocolate when I select which ice-cream to buy. Not sure what you are getting at here.

I could definitely be looking at things wrongly but you've posited two categories here: simple subjectivism and the extra bit (subjectivism proper). If the truth of subjectivism proper doesn't change how you act, then what you already act like is completely covered by simple subjectivism. So, yes, you act on your subjective tastes. We all do. Simple Subjectivism. But you don't act on the truth that your opinion is just one opinion among many. Subjectivism Proper. It seems strange to say that you are a subjectivist proper when you don't act on the truth of that. That would be like me claiming to be a theist, but not acting as though God exists.

[Bust Nak]

If the truth of subjectivism proper doesn't change how you act, then what you already act like is completely covered by simple subjectivism. So, yes, you act on your subjective tastes. We all do. Simple Subjectivism. But you don't act on the truth that your opinion is just one opinion among many.

I don't? That's news to me. The truth of subjectivism proper doesn't change how I act because I am already acting like subjectivism proper is true, that my opinion is just one among many. You speak of acting in a way that is already covered by simple subjectivism, but isn't the idea that mine is just one opinion among many also part of simple subjectivism? I really don't understand what you are getting at by asking if something changes how I act. Why would it change how I act?

Does theism changes how you act? It might do if you altered your view from atheism to theism, but why would it change how you act if you are already a theist?

[The Tanager]

I don't? That's news to me. The truth of subjectivism proper doesn't change how I act because I am already acting like subjectivism proper is true, that my opinion is just one among many. You speak of acting in a way that is already covered by simple subjectivism, but isn't the idea that mine is just one opinion among many also part of simple subjectivism? I really don't understand what you are getting at by asking if something changes how I act. Why would it change how I act?

Does theism changes how you act? It might do if you altered your view from atheism to theism, but why would it change how you act if you are already a theist?

It's not about conversion. I believe theism is true. My actions take that into account, for example, by praying to God. If I went about my life as though theism were untrue, then what's the point of saying I'm a theist?

Acting like simple subjectivism is true means acting on your personal tastes/opinions. Acting like subjectivism proper means treating your opinion as one opinion among many, which is different than just following one's personal taste. A football team can employ various strategies and there are different opinions on which ones are more effective for the members of that team. The same team can succeed using different strategies. Now, of course, as the coach you'd have to pick which one you like best, but to treat it as one opinion among many would mean allowing that other strategies would also be good/effective. Perhaps you'd even say that another coach should, if they coached your team, pick the strategy they think is best.

I think you have acted as though simple subjectivism is true, in your responses, rather than subjectivism proper. It doesn't make sense to me that those acting as though simple subjectivism is true would be exactly the same as acting as though subjectivism proper is true, when those terms mean different things.

[Bust Nak]

Acting like simple subjectivism is true means acting on your personal tastes/opinions. Acting like subjectivism proper means treating your opinion as one opinion among many, which is different than just following one's personal taste.

Right, and that's how I act, I treat my opinion as one opinion among many. My actions take that into account, I went about my life as though my opinion is one among many, which is different from just following one's personal taste.

Now, of course, as the coach you'd have to pick which one you like best, but to treat it as one opinion among many would mean allowing that other strategies would also be good/effective. Perhaps you'd even say that another coach should, if they coached your team, pick the strategy they think is best.

A coach would want to do better than the other team, so it make sense for a coach to let other teams pick the less effective strategies, the worse strategy even. My goal is different, I want all teams to do well, so I would instead say that they should all pick the best strategy.

I think you have acted as though simple subjectivism is true, in your responses, rather than subjectivism proper. It doesn't make sense to me that those acting as though simple subjectivism is true would be exactly the same as acting as though subjectivism proper is true, when those terms mean different things.

But both simple subjectivism and subjectivism proper are true, and I act accordingly.

[The Tanager]

Right, and that's how I act, I treat my opinion as one opinion among many. My actions take that into account, I went about my life as though my opinion is one among many, which is different from just following one's personal taste.

We have different ideas about what it means to act as though one's personal taste is one opinion among other opinions. Concerning the shape of the earth, I act as though my peronsal "taste" on the matter is a truth among other false opinions. Concerning mathematical truths like 2+2=4, I act as though my personal "taste" on the matter is a truth among other false opinions.

Concerning ethics, you seem to me to act as though your personal taste is one truth among other false opinions. To me, acting as though your personal taste is one opinion among other opinions would mean not acting as though your opinion is true for everyone. It would be like believing that multiple strategies will work for a specific team, choosing one to go with, but not thinking the other strategies are bad strategies.