Moral subjectivism 101

[Bust Nak]

In this thread, I'll present some of the basic idea in moral subjectivism, a subset of moral relativism, in the form of a Q&A session.

1. Can you say murder is wrong or is everything permitted?
There is no objective set of rules, but that doesn't mean there are no rules. "Murder is wrong" is commonly found as a house rule. Note that while "murder is wrong" may look like an absolute or objective statement, it is equivalent to "murder is wrong according to me" under subjectivism.

2. Who gets the set the rules?
There are two trains of thought, individual subjectivism and cultural subjectivism. The former says the individual makes the rules, the latter says society as a whole make the rules. The basics are the same, as such answers for individual subjectivism can be expand to the culture level as a collection of individuals.

3. How can you say anything is right and wrong without an objective standard?
An objective standard is not required to make moral judgement, any more than an objective standard is required to say a pizza is tasty or disgusting.

4. Doesn't that means you cannot disagree with others' morality?
That depends on how you define disagreement. If I say this pie is tasty and you say it's disgusting, are we disagreeing? If you say that's not a disagreement, then no, moral subjectivists can't disagree with each other. But I suspect most would consider a difference in food taste qualify as a disagreement.

5. If moral is subjective (focusing on the individual for now), can you force another to accept your morals?
That depends on what you mean by force. Can I force a killer to accept murder is wrong? No, not without some form of neurosurgical procedure - as moral is individualistic, we could try and influence him, but ultimately only he can change his own mind.

6. No, I mean how can you justify the use/threat of force on someone who have a different morality to you, such as someone who thinks killing for fun is moral?
There is no requirement to judge someone according to their morality or beliefs, all subjectivism says is morality is dependent on the individual or culture. So if your morality says it's right to lock murders up, then that's the moral thing to do according to you.

7. What if you wake up tomorrow and everyone else decide it's right to murder?
Then it's right to murder according to them. I would resolve this conflict of ideas in simular ways I resolve any other conflict, from ignoring them, to compromise, all the way up to violence if need be.

8. Couldn't you wake up tomorrow and decide it's right to kill for fun for example?
That's not likely because of the underlying biological mechanism at work, which isn't going to flip-flop from day to day; But to answer the question: potentially yes! What is moral depends on what the individual think. If he wakes up one morning and thinks it's right to murder then that's his morality.

9. Isn't that absurd!?
No, we see both from history and other cultures in the world today, how fluid morality can be. Far from a point against subjectivism, this in fact shows how subjectivism coincides with reality.

10. Yet there are some things which seem to universally immoral across different cultures, how can this be if everyone makes their own rules?
That's because of the underlying biological mechanism I mentioned above. The source of our morality is our mind, and we have in board terms, very simular brains. The similarity you see in our morality is the result of the common starting point from empathy.

11. Doesn't that mean some morality can be considered objective?
In a round about way, using certain definitions, yes. But consider this: There are biological reason why human prefer fatty or sweet food, would you then consider ice-cream to be objectively more tasty than a cucumber? I would say no, that is merely stating objective facts about subjective taste.

If you can think of any questions you would like answered, or challenges to (my version of) moral subjectivism, do post them here and I'll try to answer them. Also, do feel free to add to the Q&A. Over to you.

[keithprosser3]

1. Can you say murder is wrong or is everything permitted?
Murder is wrong if it is defined as unjustified killing. But killing can be justified if is it is the lesser of two evils. Hence I am against capital punishment but I am a supporter of euthanasia. The intuition that good and bad are not binary but form a spectrum suggests absolutism, because otherwise moral judgments would be random - something like killing 1 person is not as bad as killing 2, but killing 2 is worse than killing 3. As our intuition is that how bad (or good) something has some rationality to it suggest absolutism. Possibly.

2. Who gets the set the rules?
This is a stumbling block for me. I don't know if it built into the material fabric of the universe, into logic, into consciousness... my other philosophical concern is the nature of consciousness. I think that the puzzles of morality and consciousness may be interlinked.

3. How can you say anything is right and wrong without an objective standard?
One has to rely on intuition.

4 . Doesn't that means you cannot disagree with others' morality?
Intuitions may well vary between individuals.

5. If moral is subjective (focusing on the individual for now), can you force another to accept your morals?
One can argue about them rationally. I don't think I could be persuaded to change my moral stance on, say, abortion, easily but it might be possible.

6. No, I mean how can you justify the use/threat of force on someone who have a different morality to you, such as someone who thinks killing for fun is moral? It might be necessary to force individuals to behave against their moral instincts for pragmatic reason - such as by locking up an individual who sees nothing wrong in stealing.

7. What if you wake up tomorrow and everyone else decide it's right to murder?
8. Couldn't you wake up tomorrow and decide it's right to kill for fun for example?

If I did wake up thinking murder was ok then that would be the result of my brain generating an intuition even further from the 'Plationic ideal morality' than it does already.

9. Isn't that absurd!?
Morals in detail are fluid - just consider women's fashions! I don't think there is a universal moral edict regarding women's clothes. I think there might be one against genocide. Again that is my intuition talking.... I tend to back it.

10. Yet there are some things which seem to universally immoral across different cultures, how can this be if everyone makes their own rules?
Details v. fundamentals.

11. Doesn't that mean some morality can be considered objective?
Pass.

[instantc]

3. How can you say anything is right and wrong without an objective standard?
An objective standard is not required to make moral judgement, any more than an objective standard is required to say a pizza is tasty or disgusting.

So that's it? I like soup, you don't like soup. I like killing children for fun, you don't like killing children for fun. Isn't there something you are ignoring? While with the taste of soup you acknowledge that it suits you personally, but doesn't your intuition or moral compass or something say that murdering people for fun is actually wrong, whereas soup is not actually tasty or disgusting. After all, you wouldn't force your neighbor to eat your favorite soup because you think it's delicious, but you would force him not to kill his family for fun, even if all of them agree that killing is cool.

[Goat]

3. How can you say anything is right and wrong without an objective standard?
An objective standard is not required to make moral judgement, any more than an objective standard is required to say a pizza is tasty or disgusting.

So that's it? I like soup, you don't like soup. I like killing children for fun, you don't like killing children for fun. Isn't there something you are ignoring? While with the taste of soup you acknowledge that it suits you personally, but doesn't your intuition or moral compass or something say that murdering people for fun is actually wrong, whereas soup is not actually tasty or disgusting. After all, you wouldn't force your neighbor to eat your favorite soup because you think it's delicious, but you would force him not to kill his family for fun, even if all of them agree that killing is cool.

How about this. You think killing children is fun, just because, but the majority of society thinks it does not, and needs to protect itself against you by locking you up for the rest of your natural life to protect itself against you.

[instantc]

3. How can you say anything is right and wrong without an objective standard?
An objective standard is not required to make moral judgement, any more than an objective standard is required to say a pizza is tasty or disgusting.

So that's it? I like soup, you don't like soup. I like killing children for fun, you don't like killing children for fun. Isn't there something you are ignoring? While with the taste of soup you acknowledge that it suits you personally, but doesn't your intuition or moral compass or something say that murdering people for fun is actually wrong, whereas soup is not actually tasty or disgusting. After all, you wouldn't force your neighbor to eat your favorite soup because you think it's delicious, but you would force him not to kill his family for fun, even if all of them agree that killing is cool.

How about this. You think killing children is fun, just because, but the majority of society thinks it does not, and needs to protect itself against you by locking you up for the rest of your natural life to protect itself against you.

So by that logic if the majority of people in a given society likes killing children for fun, then that is the right thing to do in that society? Nothing unjust or objectively wrong with that society?

[Goat]

3. How can you say anything is right and wrong without an objective standard?
An objective standard is not required to make moral judgement, any more than an objective standard is required to say a pizza is tasty or disgusting.

So that's it? I like soup, you don't like soup. I like killing children for fun, you don't like killing children for fun. Isn't there something you are ignoring? While with the taste of soup you acknowledge that it suits you personally, but doesn't your intuition or moral compass or something say that murdering people for fun is actually wrong, whereas soup is not actually tasty or disgusting. After all, you wouldn't force your neighbor to eat your favorite soup because you think it's delicious, but you would force him not to kill his family for fun, even if all of them agree that killing is cool.

How about this. You think killing children is fun, just because, but the majority of society thinks it does not, and needs to protect itself against you by locking you up for the rest of your natural life to protect itself against you.

So by that logic if the majority of people in a given society likes killing children for fun, then that is the right thing to do in that society? Nothing unjust or objectively wrong with that society?

Other than the fact it is unstable, and unlikely to survive very long?? A psychopathy society like that has traits that will insure disintegration of the society, and will filter itself out of the gene pool very quickly.

One of the evolved traits that social animals develop is something called 'EMPATHY'. That is a survival trait. The evolved trait of empathy, and the principle of 'enlightened self interest' are survival traits that stabilize and help promote societies survival.

Now, it might be argued that a societies survival doesn't matter.. but that is the function that helps decide what society is around.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Can you say murder is wrong or is everything permitted?

Murder is wrong, only if you murder one of mine, I get to murder ya back.

Who gets the set the rules?

Me. Where my rules align with those of society, hooray. Where they don't, society can go jump in a lake.

How can you say anything is right and wrong without an objective standard?

How can those who declare there's an objective standard show they speak truth?

Doesn't that means you cannot disagree with others' morality?

Sure I can. I think it perfectly moral to have sex with as many women as I can, only it becomes immoral when they're ugly.

If moral is subjective (focusing on the individual for now), can you force another to accept your morals?

My moral code says I can't force folks to accept anything. That said, as above, you kill one of mine, and I'm gonna do my best to force a killing on you.

No, I mean how can you justify the use/threat of force on someone who have a different morality to you, such as someone who thinks killing for fun is moral?

Kill him back.

What if you wake up tomorrow and everyone else decide it's right to murder?

I go about trying to prove to 'em it ain't right to murder me.

Couldn't you wake up tomorrow and decide it's right to kill for fun for example?

I'm a hypocritical hippie. I get upset for the eating of the other life forms, but I have enough sense to know that the definition of an animal is that it hasta eat it some other life forms if it expects to be all animally and all.

Isn't that absurd!?

Subjective term borne of the incredulous, but I can't sit here all proud if I get onto ya for being it.

Yet there are some things which seem to universally immoral across different cultures, how can this be if everyone makes their own rules?

Social species.

Doesn't that mean some morality can be considered objective?

Nope. All it says is that a big pile of folks think a certain way. I find it perfectly acceptable to wanna see womens' women parts, if only for the seeing. A vast swath of society tells me I'm immoral just for the thinking of it, much less the attempting to carry through on such a devious plan.


The lion must kill another animal to feed its offspring. As noble, moral act as any.

But ask that Gnu if he's proud for it.

[ReligionSlayer]

3. How can you say anything is right and wrong without an objective standard?
An objective standard is not required to make moral judgement, any more than an objective standard is required to say a pizza is tasty or disgusting.

So that's it? I like soup, you don't like soup. I like killing children for fun, you don't like killing children for fun. Isn't there something you are ignoring? While with the taste of soup you acknowledge that it suits you personally, but doesn't your intuition or moral compass or something say that murdering people for fun is actually wrong, whereas soup is not actually tasty or disgusting. After all, you wouldn't force your neighbor to eat your favorite soup because you think it's delicious, but you would force him not to kill his family for fun, even if all of them agree that killing is cool.

How about this. You think killing children is fun, just because, but the majority of society thinks it does not, and needs to protect itself against you by locking you up for the rest of your natural life to protect itself against you.

So by that logic if the majority of people in a given society likes killing children for fun, then that is the right thing to do in that society? Nothing unjust or objectively wrong with that society?

Other than the fact it is unstable, and unlikely to survive very long?? A psychopathy society like that has traits that will insure disintegration of the society, and will filter itself out of the gene pool very quickly.

One of the evolved traits that social animals develop is something called 'EMPATHY'. That is a survival trait. The evolved trait of empathy, and the principle of 'enlightened self interest' are survival traits that stabilize and help promote societies survival.

Now, it might be argued that a societies survival doesn't matter.. but that is the function that helps decide what society is around.

LOL, you just mopped the floor with instantc. I guess instantc did not realize he was the mop head and the floor was dirty!

[keithprosser3]

The survival of a society is not necessarily a good thing... behaviour that resulted aimed at bringing down the apartheid society of South Africa was, I think, good in 'Platonic' sense but 'bad' for that society.

Obeying the law is - often - 'good' but there are 'bad laws' which it is 'good' to defy. It is a mistake to equate 'good for society' with 'absolute' or 'platonic' good.

[Goat]

The survival of a society is not necessarily a good thing... behaviour that resulted aimed at bringing down the apartheid society of South Africa was, I think, good in 'Platonic' sense but 'bad' for that society.

Obeying the law is - often - 'good' but there are 'bad laws' which it is 'good' to defy. It is a mistake to equate 'good for society' with 'absolute' or 'platonic' good.

Of course, it also could be argued that the apartheid society, in and of itself was unstable and sustainability in the long run..

It's all a 'give and take' to see which survives. I personally see the oligarchy that the U.S. has developed into as unstable in the long run... and just hope it is stable enough to last another 30 or so years. .. or that the transition to a more equitable society is smooth rather than harsh.