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.

[William]

[Replying to posta 89 & 90 ]

Artie: My only point is that some things are objectively good and some are objectively bad for societies regardless the subjective opinion of individuals.

moral people try to do what's objectively moral, they just have different subjective opinions about what the objectively moral thing to do is

William: If one were able to view the universe from a position whereby they are not directly participating in and effected by it, what 'good' or 'evil' could one identify in relation to that position?

Why do you think of 'Societies' as having objective opinions while individuals do not?
After all, societies are simply made up of individuals.

[Artie]

William: If one were able to view the universe from a position whereby they are not directly participating in and effected by it, what 'good' or 'evil' could one identify in relation to that position?

I don't understand what you mean by "in relation to that position". Please rephrase.

Why do you think of 'Societies' as having objective opinions

They don't.

while individuals do not?

Individuals can have both "subjective" and "objective" opinions.

[The Tanager]

Where did I ever suggest that subjective opinions = objective morality?

I don't believe I ever did that.

You didn't ever suggest that. My wording was unclear. Below is what I said with the bolded words being added to clarify my point:

Clearly, humans have subjective opinions concerning moral issues. If this is all you mean, then you've argued for it in a very confusing way. I never argued against this. That (i.e., "humans do not have subjective opinions concerning moral issues" has never been what people mean by "objective morality". If this is what you have thought all along, then I would love to hear why you brought that to counter something I said in that other thread.

Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not trying to argue for a meaningful model of "subjective morality". All I'm saying is that this is all we see.

The only evidence for any concept of morality that we can see is our own human subjective opinions of what we individually judge to be right or wrong.

I'm not arguing that this constitutes any meaningful system of morality. I'm simply pointing out that human subjective opinions about morality are all that exist. There is no evidence for the existence of any consistent moral system beyond that.

I think you are basing your conclusion on a faulty principle. I keep bringing up the shape of the earth here to try to get to that principle. With the shape of the earth, I think at least four things could be said.

1. We humans have subjective opinions of what we individually judge to be the shape of the earth.
2. The shape of the earth is a subjective fact.
3. The shape of the earth is an objective fact.
4. There is evidence that points to the truth of #3.

Imagine that we didn't have #4. If we only have the first three, would this make #2 the more plausible belief over #3? If so, then the principle behind that would be something like:

P1. If the only evidence we have are subjective opinions on issue X, then issue X is a subjective fact.

I would say this is clearly a faulty principle. The truth of #1 does not point to the truth of #2 (or #3) in any way. It is consistent with both. But you are using this principle in your reasoning. You are saying that #1, by itself, points to the truth of #2 when substituting "morality" for "shape of the earth," at least.

If you are simply claiming that #1 is true, then why did you think I disagreed with that in that other thread?

I would suggest that this is because historically humans have been indoctrinated by religions to believe in an absolute morality. So why are they going to suddenly accept that everyone's opinions on morality should have equal merit?

I also disagree with you observations here. I think that many humans do indeed accept that our moral codes are created by our individual opinions on morality.

I agree some people do, but that is not their initial intuition, whether they were religiously indoctrinated or not. They only get to that point when they accept the consequences of believing morality is subjective. And, even then, they aren't always consistent. As you later say, they still try to support their subjective views as the better view to have.

Logic alone cannot be the basis for objective morality because ultimately even logic ends up being dependent on subjective opinions when it comes to choosing fundamental premises upon which to build the logical arguments.

I agree with you that logic alone is not a good test for truth. Here, though, I think you conflate the issue of whether the premises built upon are true and whether the argument will convince someone who believes the premises are not true.

We don't pass moral judgements on people's choice of ice cream. Why should we pass moral judgements on people's choice of a partner in life?

Or (for subjectivists), why pass moral judgments on priests who sexually abuse children...on religious folk who damage and even kill members that are LGBTQIA+...on tribes who are okay with genocide...on rapists...and so forth.

But why? Why should ever possible action or situation need to be judged as being right or wrong. Why can't many actions be amoral. Just like choosing what flavor of ice cream to eat. No one is going to pass a moral judgement on that.

Objectivists do not typically believe that everything is a moral question, just the moral ones.

What good does it do to brand a school shooter as being an immoral person? That isn't going to change what happened. Branding any criminals as being immoral people is useless. It has no meaningful value.

The only people it can have any meaning for at all are people who believe that there is a God who will punish immoral people after they die.

Objectivists do not necessarily claim that sharing one's moral opinion is valuable in this sense. That doesn't mean there is no meaningful value to morality. At the least, it is (possibly) valuable in the sense that it is true rather than false. And true premises can logically lead to other true conclusions that will have further value in one's life.

And look at how silly Christianity is (not to pick on this religion but it just so happens to be true). Even in Christianity Jesus is offering to let immoral people off the hook anyway if they simply ask him for forgiveness.

So morality is not only a meaningless concept in reality, but it's even a meaningless concept in religion.

In Christianity Jesus is offering to toss morality right out the window. All we need to do is ask him to go ahead and do ti. And he'll do it for us.

So much for the rock of objective morality. Jesus is prepared to toss that rock aside anyway so we are told.

Without wanting to sidetrack this discussion, I would offer a different understanding of what Christianity is. God created humans and wanted to join with them in the work of caring for and creating great things in the world (so, in part, to be a moral community). Humans have tried to do it without God and messed things up. God pursues us in spite of this, willing to look past that, reconnect, and restore us to that relationship and purpose (i.e., make us into moral people). But this is not an immediate restoration because we too slowly let go of our self-will.

[The Tanager]

I don't care what person A and person B says. I am not concerned with the subjective opinions of individuals. My only point is that some things are objectively good and some are objectively bad for societies regardless the subjective opinion of individuals.

If that is your point, then I don't think you are addressing the objective/subjective morality question that this thread was set up to address. That question is about the "it is best to do" portion, not the "what is best for society" portion. That latter portion is a hypothetical imperative...if you want to do what is good for society, then you should objectively do X. I agree with you there. I am sorry for misunderstanding your claim.

[Divine Insight]

Clearly, humans have subjective opinions concerning moral issues. If this is all you mean, then you've argued for it in a very confusing way. I never argued against this. That (i.e., "humans do not have subjective opinions concerning moral issues" has never been what people mean by "objective morality". If this is what you have thought all along, then I would love to hear why you brought that to counter something I said in that other thread.

I never meant to imply that because subjective morality clearly exists this somehow negates the idea that an objective morality could also exist.

My argument is simple as follows:

1. We know that morality as a human subjective construct does indeed exist.

That's a given. We have overwhelming evidence for the existence of morality as a human subjective construct. Moreover this is all we have any evidence for.

2. While this fact does not negate or prevent an objective morality from also existing, the fact is that there simply is no evidence for any objective morality.


This is all I'm saying. I'm not trying to claim that since human subjective morality exists this negates the possibility of some objective morality also existing. I'm simply pointing out that we have evidence for the existence of the former, and we have no evidence for the existence of the latter.

Could they both exist simultaneously? Sure. But there's no evidence for objective morality. So where is there any argument for its existence?

I think you are basing your conclusion on a faulty principle. I keep bringing up the shape of the earth here to try to get to that principle. With the shape of the earth, I think at least four things could be said.

1. We humans have subjective opinions of what we individually judge to be the shape of the earth.
2. The shape of the earth is a subjective fact.
3. The shape of the earth is an objective fact.
4. There is evidence that points to the truth of #3.

Imagine that we didn't have #4. If we only have the first three, would this make #2 the more plausible belief over #3? If so, then the principle behind that would be something like:

P1. If the only evidence we have are subjective opinions on issue X, then issue X is a subjective fact.

I would say this is clearly a faulty principle. The truth of #1 does not point to the truth of #2 (or #3) in any way. It is consistent with both. But you are using this principle in your reasoning. You are saying that #1, by itself, points to the truth of #2 when substituting "morality" for "shape of the earth," at least.

If you are simply claiming that #1 is true, then why did you think I disagreed with that in that other thread?

I'm totally onboard with everything you've said here. And none of this changes anything I've said.

If all we had was #1 then all we would see concerning the the question of the shape of the earth would be human subjective opinions. And that's all we would have evidence for.

Your analogy breaks down at #2. which is false and not something I would ever endorse.

2. The shape of the earth is a subjective fact.

What? If all we have are human subjective opinions of what shape the earth might be, then why in the world would we ever conclude that those subjective opinions represent "facts"?

Instead, if all we have are human subjective opinions of what shape the earth might be then the only rational conclusion is to say that nobody knows the shape of the earth.

Same thing with morality. If all we have are human subjective moral opinions, we don't say that those opinions are fact about morality. Instead we simply acknowledge that humans have different opinions on what they thing should constitute morality.

That's all.

Now let's look at 3 & 4:

3. The shape of the earth is an objective fact.
4. There is evidence that points to the truth of #3.

If you can do the same thing for morality then you'll be home free!

All I can say at this point is "Good luck with that".

We know where the earth is. We can point to it for inspection.

Can you point to objective morality so we can inspect it?

I would suggest that this is because historically humans have been indoctrinated by religions to believe in an absolute morality. So why are they going to suddenly accept that everyone's opinions on morality should have equal merit?

I also disagree with you observations here. I think that many humans do indeed accept that our moral codes are created by our individual opinions on morality.

I agree some people do, but that is not their initial intuition, whether they were religiously indoctrinated or not. They only get to that point when they accept the consequences of believing morality is subjective. And, even then, they aren't always consistent. As you later say, they still try to support their subjective views as the better view to have.

Based on what I highlighted in red in you above quote I think the burden is on you to provide compelling evidence that all humans are born with precisely the same moral intuition.

You are introducing a premise here that you have not demonstrated to be true, and there's no reason for me to just blindly accept it. In fact, to accept this premise automatically make objective morality true, because surely you know that if all humans are born with precisely the same moral instincts that would indeed amount to objective morality.

But other than a lofty philosophical ideal that would force your position to be true, how in the world could you ever hope to prove such a thing?

What about all the human tribes throughout history that had totally different ideas on morality? How do you hope to explain that if you are assuming that all humans are born with the precise same moral intuition?

I would suggest that the proof against your proposal already exists in the different moral behaviors of different human tribes throughout history.

Your hypothesis that all humans are born with the same moral intuition doesn't appear to stand up to reality.

So you're basically asking me to accept an unproven, and even an unrealistic premise that will obviously force your claim for objective morality to be true.

I can't imagine why I would embrace such an idea that not only has no evidence to support it, but actually has eons of historical evidence that independent human tribes develop different and incompatible moral ideals.

Because of this I would suggest that your proposal of such a premise is unrealistic and goes against observe human behavior.

Again, there's no evidence for it, and overwhelming evidence against it.

Logic alone cannot be the basis for objective morality because ultimately even logic ends up being dependent on subjective opinions when it comes to choosing fundamental premises upon which to build the logical arguments.

I agree with you that logic alone is not a good test for truth. Here, though, I think you conflate the issue of whether the premises built upon are true and whether the argument will convince someone who believes the premises are not true.

Well, I certainly see no reason to accept a premise that all humans are born with the same moral intuitions. Not only does real world historical evidence show otherwise. But if all humans are born with the same objective moral intuitions. Then who corrupted them? They couldn't have corrupted themselves if they were all born with the same moral intuitions.

I would suggest that your proposed premise has problems even from a purely philosophical perspective. If all humans are born with the same moral intuitions then at what point are they diverging from these primal intuitions? It couldn't be from influences from other humans, because according to your premise all humans have the same moral institutions from birth.

So I suggest that your ideal philosophically proposed premise already has purely philosophical problems associated with it. If all humans are born with the same moral intuitions then there's no logical reason why they should deviate from this as they grow.

We don't pass moral judgements on people's choice of ice cream. Why should we pass moral judgements on people's choice of a partner in life?

Or (for subjectivists), why pass moral judgments on priests who sexually abuse children...on religious folk who damage and even kill members that are LGBTQIA+...on tribes who are okay with genocide...on rapists...and so forth.

I totally agree! My position is that the very concept of morality is useless in all forms. Whether it be subjective or objective.

Why do we need to judge people as being immoral? What's the point to it?

Look at the priests. They have been taught that to indulge in sexual pleasures is a sin. They have been taught that to abuse children is a sin as well as being illegal. But the fact that is has been deemed to be both immoral and illegal doesn't stop them from doing it.

So moral ideals aren't even effective deterrents. All that's needed is a secular law to do something about it after the fact. After all, even the fact that it's against secular law doesn't seem to slow the priests down.

Moreover if you want to judge them, why not just take them to a secular psychiatrist. They'll be glad to decree the man to be "sick". Not in term of any moral judgements, but simply in terms of secular analysis of how the vast majority of people behave. The priest's behavior would be classified as "abnormal" even by secular standards.

The bottom line in this is that a concept of morality doesn't even serve any useful purpose.

What is served by decreeing that the priest is 'immoral"?

And in Christianity what do you do if Jesus decides to forgive him? What then? Did an immoral priest just go to heaven?

Objectivists do not typically believe that everything is a moral question, just the moral ones.

How do you decide which questions are moral questions?

For example, why should the question of who someone chooses to become sexually intimate with and live with for the rest of their lives even be considered a moral question? Why should this be branded a "right" or "wrong" choice?

How about divorce? Why does that need to be judged "right" or "wrong"? If a couple is no longer getting along, why should it be considered to be wrong or immoral for them to part ways?

What about polygamy? If everyone involved in the polygamous relationship is happy with it an not being coerced into it , then why judge it to be "immoral"?

Why should polygamy even be on the list of "moral questions".

So even the idea of which questions should be considered to be moral questions is open to human subjective opinion.

Without wanting to sidetrack this discussion, I would offer a different understanding of what Christianity is. God created humans and wanted to join with them in the work of caring for and creating great things in the world (so, in part, to be a moral community). Humans have tried to do it without God and messed things up. God pursues us in spite of this, willing to look past that, reconnect, and restore us to that relationship and purpose (i.e., make us into moral people). But this is not an immediate restoration because we too slowly let go of our self-will.

I see this as nothing more than a human subjective opinion on what they imagine a religious fable to mean.

I'll share my human subjective opinions on these very same thoughts below:

God created humans and wanted to join with them in the work of caring for and creating great things in the world (so, in part, to be a moral community).

I see no reason to think that a truly intelligent wise God shouldn't have been able to achieve that goal if that's what he wanted to do.

Humans have tried to do it without God and messed things up.

My Bible says that God kicked the humans out. Something that was totally uncalled for, IMHO.

God pursues us in spite of this, willing to look past that, reconnect, and restore us to that relationship and purpose (i.e., make us into moral people). But this is not an immediate restoration because we too slowly let go of our self-will.

I don't buy this because I see in the Bible too many attempts by this God to try to solve the problem. All of which (again in my human subjective opinion) were nothing more than a display of extreme ignorance. stupidity, violence, and futility.

Have you ever wondered why this God can never actually solve a problem intelligently? After reading the Bible I'm prepared to offer my consulting advice to the Biblical God for FREE! I can see where is could definitely use some help in making better choices on how to deal with his problems.

But this is not an immediate restoration because we too slowly let go of our self-will.

Finally, what's up with Christianity?

According to Christianity this God GAVE UP ENTIRELY on the idea that we might come around to his way of thinking. Jesus was supposedly sent to offer us undeserved amnesty for being unable to cooperate on our own. In fact, Christianity even demands that we can never cooperate on our own and that we can only be accepted by God via the undeserved amnesty that Jesus has to offer.

So Christianity has this God giving up entirely on his original hopes and dreams that he could ever work with cooperating humans. And now he apparently had to resort to the extreme desperation of simply offering the rebellious humans undeserved amnesty if they'll simply ask for it.

I can only guess that once he gets them into heaven he'll convert them over to robots that will no longer be permitted to have any free will as they have already proven that they can't handle it.

After all, where does Christianity allow anyone to actually surrender to the will of God? That's not even an option. We aren't even permitted to do that in Christianity. All we are permitted to do is confess that we refuse to obey God and ask Jesus to remove our free will and convert us into totally obedient robot who are no longer permitted to think for ourselves.

In Christianity the option to choose to be in harmony with God has been completely taken off the table. Confessing to Jesus that you can't behave yourself is hardly agreeing to work in harmony with God. It's just an admission that you can't do it.

Also there's the question of asking why it is that humans can't do this? Why did this God create billions upon billions of humans who can't even have the same goals as him?

Shouldn't he be firing his engineers who design human souls for him?

That would be my first suggestion to God. QUIT mass producing humans until you figure out how to design them better. For crying out loud!

Even most manufacturing companies know better than to keep producing grossly defective products that don't perform as they had hoped.

But not the Biblical God. He just keeps producing inferior designed humans non-stop and then seems to want to hold them responsible for having been poorly designed.

Thank goodness it's all nothing more than a poorly written collection of ancient fables.

[William]

[Replying to post 92 ]

William: If one were able to view the universe from a position whereby they are not directly participating in and effected by it, what 'good' or 'evil' could one identify in relation to that position?

Artie:I don't understand what you mean by "in relation to that position"

William: If you were in a position whereby you were able to simply observe the universe and the universe had no effect on you, what about the universe could you identify as either 'good' or 'evil'?

[Artie]

[Replying to post 92 ]

William: If one were able to view the universe from a position whereby they are not directly participating in and effected by it, what 'good' or 'evil' could one identify in relation to that position?

Artie:I don't understand what you mean by "in relation to that position"

William: If you were in a position whereby you were able to simply observe the universe and the universe had no effect on you, what about the universe could you identify as either 'good' or 'evil'?

I still don't get your point. The whole universe is neither good nor evil.

[Artie]

I don't care what person A and person B says. I am not concerned with the subjective opinions of individuals. My only point is that some things are objectively good and some are objectively bad for societies regardless the subjective opinion of individuals.

If that is your point, then I don't think you are addressing the objective/subjective morality question that this thread was set up to address. That question is about the "it is best to do" portion, not the "what is best for society" portion. That latter portion is a hypothetical imperative...if you want to do what is good for society, then you should objectively do X. I agree with you there. I am sorry for misunderstanding your claim.

Sure. Then we are in agreement. I would say that morality is functionally objective. https://thegemsbok.com/art-reviews-and- ... -morality/

[William]

[Replying to post 97 ]

William:If you were in a position whereby you were able to simply observe the universe and the universe had no effect on you, what about the universe could you identify as either 'good' or 'evil'?

Artie: I still don't get your point. The whole universe is neither good nor evil.

William: I wasn't making any point. I was asking you to try and identify 'good' and 'evil' in something which has no effect on you.
Your answer here provides us with an example that clearly shows that 'good' and 'evil' are created through ideas of morality and as such, morality cannot be expected to exist independently of the thoughts of those experiencing the universe. Whether those thoughts come from individuals or societies of individuals, makes no difference.

Morality does not exist as an objective reality. There is no thing in the universe which can be said to be objective morality, because all such judgement comes from a subjective source.

Morality - and 'good and evil' are made up ideas. The shame of being naked (as with the story of The Garden of Eden) is a made up idea - which someone can be made to believe is real. Sin is a made up thing, which someone can be made to believe is real. It is caused through knowledge of Law. Law is a made up thing.

Things are made up for various reasons. Law and punishment are made up for the sake of social order. All are sourced within the subjective.

Such may be influenced by the experience of the objective, but this should not be confused with it therefore being that there is such a thing as objective morality.

If one were to point to another and say that the other is 'good' or 'evil' because the other is regarded objectively, and their actions regarded as objective, does not mean that they actually are.

Objective morality - and immorality - are not products of objective reality, sourced from the objective.

Rather, they are responses sourced in the subjective.

[The Tanager]

What? If all we have are human subjective opinions of what shape the earth might be, then why in the world would we ever conclude that those subjective opinions represent "facts"? Think

Instead, if all we have are human subjective opinions of what shape the earth might be then the only rational conclusion is to say that nobody knows the shape of the earth.

Same thing with morality. If all we have are human subjective moral opinions, we don't say that those opinions are fact about morality. Instead we simply acknowledge that humans have different opinions on what they thing should constitute morality.

You are still missing my point. Acknowledging that humans have different opinions on what they think should constitute morality is NOT subjectivism; one is simply noting that different opinions exist. Subjectivism is a positive view that there is no objective way to judge one of those different opinions as correct over another. You are treating "different opinions on 'moral' issues exist" and "subjectivism" as synonyms, when they are not. Subjectivism takes "different opinions on 'moral' issues exist" a step further, making a claim about their truth value. If they are not synonyms, then the truth of "different opinions exist" does not equate to the truth of subjectivism.

That is why, without any scientific evidence for the shape of the earth, physical subjectivism would still not be a rational belief (at least for that reason alone). That we have "different opinions" is not a good reason to believe there is no objective shape to the earth. In exactly the same way, that we have "different opinions" is not a good reason to believe subjectivism is true.

Based on what I highlighted in red in you above quote I think the burden is on you to provide compelling evidence that all humans are born with precisely the same moral intuition.

You are introducing a premise here that you have not demonstrated to be true, and there's no reason for me to just blindly accept it. In fact, to accept this premise automatically make objective morality true, because surely you know that if all humans are born with precisely the same moral instincts that would indeed amount to objective morality.

...

Noting that the "same moral intuition" here means ONLY that "morality is non-subjective" NOT stuff like "abortion is wrong, female genital mutilation is okay, stealing is wrong, etc.," I will only offer people to be honest with themselves. If you truly think your initial intuition to something like the Holocaust is equivalent to liking different ice cream flavors, then my argument fails for you.

This premise does not automatically make objective morality true, it simply makes it a simpler, more plausible view than Subjectivism until a defeater (possibly atheism) comes along.

So moral ideals aren't even effective deterrents.

Who is arguing that moral ideals are effective deterrents? I'm not. I was saying there that subjectivists, to be consistent, look at protecting the child from the priest and allowing the priest to abuse the child as though looking at chocolate ice cream vs. pistachio flavored ice cream. Why try to stop pistachio ice cream lovers just because you don't like pistachio ice cream?

How do you decide which questions are moral questions?

We just have terms that different questions fall under (biological, sociological, mathematical, philosophical, moral, etc.). Even saying "polygamy" should be allowed between consenting adults is taking a moral position (as opposed to a biological one). But I still agree some may disagree on what category some actions should be placed in. For instance, one thinks the amount of sleep one gets has a moral dimension in some situations and another disagrees. So what? How does that say anything against any of my claims?

I see this as nothing more than a human subjective opinion on what they imagine a religious fable to mean.

I'll share my human subjective opinions on these very same thoughts below:

I see this as a tangent to this thread. If you don't think so, help me to see the importance of your point as it regards subjectivism vs. objectivism. Then, you will need to show why your interpretation of Christianity far outstrips other intepretations. If you agree it is a tangent, but still want to hear my thoughts on it all, then start a thread and let me know and I'll do so.