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]

[Replying to post 130 by Artie]

Not "objectively wrong" does not imply "objectively right." Whether an alligator is sick or not for not eating a human baby has nothing to do with morality.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 130 by Artie]

Not "objectively wrong" does not imply "objectively right." Whether an alligator is sick or not for not eating a human baby has nothing to do with morality.

Exactly. When I said that it's not "objectively wrong" I didn't mean that it was "objectively right". I simply meant that it has nothing to do with any objective morality. Objective morality simply doesn't exist. All that exists as far as morality goes is what humans consider to be right or wrong. It's a totally human-invented subjective idea.

This isn't mean to belittle the idea of morality, but rather only to recognize it for what it is. How much value we place on the idea of morality is entirely up to us.

However, recognizing it for what it is should also be important to us.

[wiploc]

I argued that my Divine Command Theory was grounded in God, which if true, would be an objective source of human morality. Rather than arguing against theism, you questioned the "authority" of this connection and I tried to explain my view there. If my explanation goes through...I know you don't think it does...but if it does, then the source is an objective source. If your explanation goes through, then (admittedly by you, as far as I could tell) you have no source, which leaves us with just the utilitarian vs. divine command vs. ethical egoism desires OR some deeper source that is completely unknown and mysterious, taken on blind faith alone.

You claim seems to be that if you're right (about god-based morality being, in some sense, "objective") then you're right. And you claim that if I'm wrong (about non-god-based morality the same degree of objectivity as god-based morality) then I'm wrong.

But I've never understood your reason for thinking you're right and I'm wrong.

[Artie]

Exactly. When I said that it's not "objectively wrong" I didn't mean that it was "objectively right".

It is "objectively right". From an objective point of view it is objectively right for an alligator to eat when he's hungry.

I simply meant that it has nothing to do with any objective morality. Objective morality simply doesn't exist. All that exists as far as morality goes is what humans consider to be right or wrong. It's a totally human-invented subjective idea.

It would be objectively right for an alligator to eat when he's hungry even if no humans existed to consider it to be "right or wrong".

[wiploc]

It would be objectively right for an alligator to eat when he's hungry even if no humans existed to consider it to be "right or wrong".

That's a point of view.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 134 by Artie]

So you keep insisting, but can you prove any of this? Earlier you said "Immoral or bad or wrong are just words we use for behavior that leads to a dysfunctional society," what does statement even mean in the context where is no humans existed call something immoral, bad or wrong?

[William]

[Replying to post 136 by ]

Bust Nak: So you keep insisting, but can you prove any of this? Earlier you said "Immoral or bad or wrong are just words we use for behavior that leads to a dysfunctional society," what does statement even mean in the context where is no humans existed call something immoral, bad or wrong?

William: The argument could then branch into language and culture in relation to nature.
Would the idea that morality is encoded into form and expressed - for or against - through the form, be relevant?

Do other species on the planet show recognizable signs of being moral, even that they are limited in language.
What makes it morally wrong for a human to eat a human baby but not for a crocodile?


Does the idea of a Creator stem from this difference?
Is the fact that humans develop ideas of a Creator/Creators directly related to their sense of morality and does this have to mean that a Creator is 'made up by humans' because morality is also made up by humans?

I think that the argument that Tanager and other theists might be making is along those lines. That morals are part of the programming a Creator instilled within the human form, not as something obvious but something which would develop through humans discovering these, within themselves.
As often can happen with things discovered, we forget that they existed prior to being discovered.

However, even if that was the case, morals cannot be said to be objective, like something which can be seen through Hubble and declared 'there it is'.

They are sourced within, and are thus subjective.

Indeed, the same might be said of a Creator. Religiosity tends to objectify ideas of Creators.

[Bust Nak]

Do other species on the planet show recognizable signs of being moral, even that they are limited in language.

There are a few suggestions here:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/ ... wrong.html

What makes it morally wrong for a human to eat a human baby but not for a crocodile?

Objectivists say nothing makes it morally wrong, it just is morally wrong according to the one true standard of morality.

Subjectivists say it is our judgement that makes it morally wrong. The very act of judging it to be wrong, makes it morality wrong.

Does the idea of a Creator stem from this difference?

We do know that many theist uses the moral law giver argument.

I think that the argument that Tanager and other theists might be making is along those lines. That morals are part of the programming a Creator instilled within the human form, not as something obvious but something which would develop through humans discovering these, within themselves.

The problem is, a mindless process like evolution would suffice in programming morality within us.

[The Tanager]

That's the point, isn't it? Lets break down what you are saying here: thoughts (1) and (5), when paired with the premise that subjectivism is true, collapse into expressions which are consistent with subjectivism.

That's just a long-winded way of saying (1) and (5) are consistent with subjectivism.

Yet I am still "normally understood" to be operating in ways that is inconsistently with subjectivism. So, going back to my earlier question: Are you (objectivists in general) just misidentifying our actions as being inconsistent with subjectivism? Are you overstating your case when it comes to moral intuition?

It's clearly the case from where I am sitting.

To make (1) and (5) fit with subjectivism you are redefining them, though. You are connecting them to a different concept that already exists. But the original concepts still exist. The original concepts behind (1) and (5) are inconsistent with subjectivism. A consistent subjectivist would not believe that, as originally understood, the priest ought not to abuse that child. Just like we don't have the thought that one ought not to eat the ice cream flavor they really like.

[The Tanager]

There are three things being talked about here:

(a) human subjective opinions concerning issue X (this issue can be moral, scientific, aesthetic, etc.)
(b) issue X is a human subjective construct
(c) issue X is an objective fact

When it concerns the scientific, you agree that the truth of (a) does not lead to the truth of (b). When it concerns the moral, you claim the truth of (a) does lead to the truth of (b). I'm asking you to explain why you use the principle in one case, but not the other.

Because in the case of morality all we are talking about are opinions. Period.

No, subjectivism moves beyond the existence of opinions. You are trying to get to the truth of subjectivism from the existence of opinions using a principle we know is faulty without providing any support that it works in this case.

By the way, I'd like to point out here that it was never my position that some intangible philosophical object called "morality as a human construct" somehow exists.

I never thought that was your position and did not respond as though it was.

Here perhaps this will help:

Above you say "concerning issue X" like as if issue X itself already existed independent of human thought.

No, I don't do that. Separating (b) and (c) from (a) keeps us from begging that question either way.

How long do you intend to hide behind the idea that I haven't already demonstrated clearly that there is no evidence for ideas of right or wrong beyond ideas that humans have?

As far as I'm concerned the fact that this is all that we have ever observed in our world is more than sufficient.

It's up to you to provide evidence for the existence of anything beyond this. Thus far you haven't done this. You clearly tried to do this by claiming that all humans have universal moral intuition. But that failed miserably.

Do you have anything else? If not, then I don't see where there is anything more to discuss here.

I'm fine ending our conversation here and letting everyone decide for themselves where the evidence has led.