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.

[Artie]

No. Morality is objective because we can from an objective point of view say which behaviors would be good/right/moral or bad/wrong/immoral when it comes to the well-being and survival of a society. Your taste in food is subjective. But we can find the objective reasons for why you have that particular taste in food.

But we can from an objective point of view say which food would be good/beneficial or bad/harmful when it comes to the personal health and survival of a person, why isn't that enough to support the claim that food taste is objective?

What exactly do you mean by "food taste is objective"?

[Bust Nak]

What exactly do you mean by "food taste is objective"?

That there exist objective food taste truths, i.e propositions that refer to objective features of the world, i.e. features independent of subjective opinion.

[Artie]

What exactly do you mean by "food taste is objective"?

That there exist objective food taste truths, i.e propositions that refer to objective features of the world, i.e. features independent of subjective opinion.

Could you be more specific? Because "food taste" could refer to how food tastes from a scientific point of view, the particular taste of a particular food, the subjective taste of a particular person etc etc...

[Bust Nak]

Could you be more specific? Because "food taste" could refer to how food tastes from a scientific point of view, the particular taste of a particular food, the subjective taste of a particular person etc etc...

Woah there, what's this about subjective taste of a particular person? Haven't we already established that we can from an objective point of view say which food would be good/beneficial or bad/harmful when it comes to the personal health and survival of a person? You were so sure the equivalent of re: benefits for society was enough to prove objective morality, now are telling me there is such a thing as subjective food taste?

[Artie]

Woah there, what's this about subjective taste of a particular person? Haven't we already established that we can from an objective point of view say which food would be good/beneficial or bad/harmful when it comes to the personal health and survival of a person?

What's the connection between that and the person's taste in food? What's the connection between what is objectively good/beneficial or bad/harmful to a society and the subjective opinion of a person?

[Bust Nak]

What's the connection between that and the person's taste in food?

The connection is argument used. If it is enough to prove objective morality, why isn't it enough to prove objective food taste?

What's the connection between what is objectively good/beneficial or bad/harmful to a society and the subjective opinion of a person?

You tell me. What's the connection between what is objectively good/beneficial or bad/harmful to a person's health and the subjective opinion of a person?

[The Tanager]

Don't people ever get tired of repeating that nonsense? Since we have gravity if I drop a book it should end up on the floor. And it does. If somebody said since we have gravity the book should just fly away I would question his sanity.

That's not what you are saying with morality, though. Person A murders someone, that's what actually happens, but you aren't saying that is what they should do.

Or, if that is what you are really saying with morality, then the answer of what individuals should do still seems that it is going to be different. The way Person A (who murdered someone) ended up included thinking he was right in murdering that person. Person B ended on a different note in relation to that. We have different shoulds for individuals. Why should they be judged by how Person Z ends up once natural selection has perfected humanity?

[The Tanager]

How are you getting the idea that "objectivity" being limited to human opinion from the Euthyphro dilemma?

You said that moral objectivism, as far as tied to a deity as the source, came about with Aquinas. Plato has Euthyphro tying moral objectivism to the gods. Plato wrote Euthyphro's dilemma way before Aquinas came around. In that dialogue the object of discussion is human morality.

You never said anything about different. And that's part of my point, you are operating under the presumption objectivism and automatically thought the list was different without needing to make it explicit. Other people don't operate under that presumption.

It's not because I'm an objectivist that I thought we were denoting different ideas. If I was making a list about English football clubs I would write it as:

1. Everton FC/The Blues/The Toffees
2. Liverpool FC/The Reds
etc.

Not:

1. Everton FC
2. The Blues
3. The Toffees
4. Liverpool FC
5. The Reds
etc.

Perhaps I was wrong to assume this. I apologize for not making my intention clearer.

Wanting the priest punished came as naturally as wanting to turn to another radio station when I hear rap music. I mean. don't you have the same reaction when it comes to music that you positively hate?

But I don't want people who like country music to be stopped from producing it. I don't want them punished.

[Artie]

Don't people ever get tired of repeating that nonsense? Since we have gravity if I drop a book it should end up on the floor. And it does. If somebody said since we have gravity the book should just fly away I would question his sanity.

That's not what you are saying with morality, though. Person A murders someone, that's what actually happens, but you aren't saying that is what they should do.

Or, if that is what you are really saying with morality, then the answer of what individuals should do still seems that it is going to be different. The way Person A (who murdered someone) ended up included thinking he was right in murdering that person. Person B ended on a different note in relation to that. We have different shoulds for individuals. Why should they be judged by how Person Z ends up once natural selection has perfected humanity?

Because of gravity if we drop a book it should end up on the floor. Because of evolution and natural selection we should end up with a sort of "heaven". Maybe people have subjective reasons why they think the book shouldn't end up on the floor but these are completely irrelevant to the fact that according to the laws of nature it should. Same with evolution and natural selection. What people objectively should do is behave in such a way that our society gets as close to this "heaven" as possible. If they have other subjective agendas they should subjectively do other things but that has nothing to do with what they objectively should do.

[Bust Nak]

Plato has Euthyphro tying moral objectivism to the gods.

Why do you think that? The two horns are objective morality independently from gods (loved by the gods because it is pious,) and morality tired to gods (pious because it is loved by gods) which is quite subjectivism.

It's not because I'm an objectivist that I thought we were denoting different ideas. If I was making a list about English football clubs I would write it as:

1. Everton FC/The Blues/The Toffees
2. Liverpool FC/The Reds
etc.

Not:

1. Everton FC
2. The Blues
3. The Toffees
4. Liverpool FC
5. The Reds
etc.

You would do that because you assume that Everton FC would be understood to be the same as The Blues, assumed to be the same as The Toffees. For someone like me who don't know much about English clubs, I am pretty confused without this presumed knowledge of club aliases.

Perhaps I was wrong to assume this. I apologize for not making my intention clearer.

That you didn't think to make it clearer is evidence of what I am charging you with, you simply assumed that things are to be understood with the presumption of objectivism; which in turn leads to you think subjectivists are acting inconsistently.

But I don't want people who like country music to be stopped from producing it. I don't want them punished.

Right, you don't see music taste as a moral issue and neither do I, is that so surprising? Wanting to turn to another station with respect to music taste, is the equivalent of wanting people punish with respect to moral issue. So if you understand how wanting to switch station is the natural reaction to not liking certain music, it should be trivial that wanting to punish people for wrong doing is the natural reaction to not liking how they are acting?

Perhaps if you explain why you have the reaction of wanting to tune to another station upon some bad music, I can borrow your words to explain why I want to punish people for wrong doing.