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 can see myself being a victim more than being an abuser, I see victims as being my in-group and abusers as the out-group. I like victims more than I like abusers.

Are you saying that it's not about any damage that's done? Is it similar to identifying more with a nationality simply because you were born in that place?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #471]

It's not about anything other than how I feel, I don't know what to tell you. I am not going to justify my feelings with post hoc reasoning. It's not like we are evaluating the morality of environmental policies where the outcome/implications are not immediate obvious. Child abuse is evocative and visceral to me, isn't it to you?

[The Tanager]

It's not about anything other than how I feel, I don't know what to tell you. I am not going to justify my feelings with post hoc reasoning. It's not like we are evaluating the morality of environmental policies where the outcome/implications are not immediate obvious. Child abuse is evocative and visceral to me, isn't it to you?

It evokes a reaction from me because of the damage being done to someone that I feel is worth better treatment than that. That reason is why I have the feelings I do.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #473]

With that you have open yourself up for all sorts of challenge along the lines of "the damage in this case is higher but the reaction isn't as strong, is the victim not worthy?" No thanks, I would just stick to how it makes I feel.

[The Tanager]

With that you have open yourself up for all sorts of challenge along the lines of "the damage in this case is higher but the reaction isn't as strong, is the victim not worthy?" No thanks, I would just stick to how it makes I feel.

It seems to me that you are opening yourself up to that, not me. You are basing being against child abuse on a subjective feeling you have alone. If the feelings aren't there in the future, then you'd have no reason to be against child abuse. Perhaps that feeling will accompany the abuser in the future, making the victim less worthy in your eyes. I am against child abuse because of what is being done to the individuals involved, not any reaction or feelings I have from hearing about it, although I hope I won't become numb to such heinous acts.

[Bust Nak]

It seems to me that you are opening yourself up to that, not me.

Why? I don't have to be consistent, you do. I am immune from attacks along that line.

If the feelings aren't there in the future, then you'd have no reason to be against child abuse. Perhaps that feeling will accompany the abuser in the future, making the victim less worthy in your eyes.

That's to be expected because we are dealing with feelings. I don't have to justify that any more than I have to justify liking chocolate ice-cream more when I was 10 but now I like vanilla - my taste simply changed.

I am against child abuse because of what is being done to the individuals involved, not any reaction or feelings I have from hearing about it, although I hope I won't become numb to such heinous acts.

So is child abuse equally as wrong as adult abuse, assuming what is being done (say, being slapped across the face for spilling a drink) is the same? You either have to say yes, or provide further justification as to why they are different. Where as I can just say "meh, I feel that child abuse is worse."

[The Tanager]

Why? I don't have to be consistent, you do. I am immune from attacks along that line.

I'm not saying you need to be consistent in that way, just that you are opening yourself up to that, while I don't think I am.

That's to be expected because we are dealing with feelings. I don't have to justify that any more than I have to justify liking chocolate ice-cream more when I was 10 but now I like vanilla.

You don't need to justify anything to me, if you don't want to. But we can still analyze more deeply why you like chocolate more now.

So child abuse equally as wrong as adult abuse, assuming what is being done (say, being slapped across the face for spilling a drink) is the same?

Yes, I think all abuse is wrong, no matter whether it emotionally affects me or not. But I'd rather it also emotionally affect me as well.

[Bust Nak]

I'm not saying you need to be consistent in that way, just that you are opening yourself up to that, while I don't think I am.

Opening myself up to what exactly? The accusation of lack of consistency? Not a problem, I don't claim to be consistent.

You don't need to justify anything to me, if you don't want to. But we can still analyze more deeply why you like chocolate more now.

Can you really? Food taste is pretty much as basic as it gets, no?

Yes, I think all abuse is wrong, no matter whether it emotionally affects me or not. But I'd rather it also emotionally affect me as well.

Wrong, yes, but equally as wrong?

[The Tanager]

Can you really? Food taste is pretty much as basic as it gets, no?

No, there are different reasons as to why we like certain foods: they are sweet, they are sour, they are healthy, etc.

Yes, I think all abuse is wrong, no matter whether it emotionally affects me or not. But I'd rather it also emotionally affect me as well.p

Wrong, yes, but equally as wrong?

That might depend on what you mean. For instance, I would separate it being equally wrong with whether that calls for equal consequences.

[Bust Nak]

No, there are different reasons as to why we like certain foods: they are sweet, they are sour, they are healthy, etc.

But why this sweet dish and not the other? And healthy has nothing to do with liking a taste.

That might depend on what you mean. For instance, I would separate it being equally wrong with whether that calls for equal consequences.

How do you justify punishing people different for the same amount of wrongness?