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.

[Bust Nak]

But they do disagree with my thinking that slavery and apartheid are bad is more than just an opinion!

Yes, we do, I think you've spoken to enough atheists to know most of us are subjectivists/relativists. I was referring to seeing racism as evil and not inviting and white supremacist to tea.

[pappillion001]

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.

Killing kids for fun is obviously an extreme. They would not last long because they kill off the kids and therefore have nobody to keep the tradition if you will.

But what if it's human sacrifice for religious purposes or like the Huns or Vikings who were cruel as an acceptable means of waging war and had no moral conflict with rape, murder, theft or conquest.

I think learned behavior, life experience and how both are perceived by the individual will determine their social behavior and interactions. Something like empathy is easily ignored just as other emotional responses that are hard wired into us

[pappillion001]

So would you argue that if somewhere in the future a society of rapists, thieves and psychopaths is more likely to survive than a society of honest and kind people, then the former is in fact a better society in the moral sense of the word?

Wouldn't they think it was? While someone who thought it immoral would think it needed to be be purged from the planet. Similar to what happened during the colonization period of the Americas. The natives thought they were just fine while Europeans were so shocked by the values the Indians held that they decided it would be in their best interest to adopt Western values. Which was achieved by killing, raping, stealing and enslaving them. I guess if you didn't share their moral values then they were not going to give you the benefit of them.

Stating one is better than other is perspective.

[Goat]

Goat seemed to be arguing that apartheid was bad because it was an inherently unstable basis for a society, not because Apartheid was inherently evil.

My view is that even if the apartheid systems was stable and sustainable (I note the slave based Roman society endured for hundreds of years) it would none the less be 'evil'.

No doubt there were many White South Africans who did not see apartheid as evil. Whether they were supporting an objective evil or not (I think they were), I wouldn't invite one of them to tea - especially as my wife is a rather attractively dusky Kikuyu!

Right..

Now, I will also say that 'Morality is a socially conditioned response'. Just because something is not 'inherently evil' doesn't mean that people can't have a strong emotional reaction against it. I am the product of my society, my upbrining, my own personal emotional reactions, and it's guided by enlightened self interest. Some people interest are not 'enlightened'. .. that is why you get the 'prosperity Christians'..

My own personal culture and social conditioning has a strong negative reaction against apartheid. My culture and up bringing allowed the development of empathy.

[ReligionSlayer]

Another issue that people seem to miss is that it actually came from the English, and not from South Africa (or their government).

I won't claim the English are blameless, but don't forget the Dutch had a lot to do with it too!

I fail to see how you connect the Dutch with Apartheid in SA?
Can you please elaborate on this?

Do you also reject that the Christian Churches were promoting Apartheid, and the English introduced the concept of apartheid?

I am sure you won't find any here disagreeing with you.

But they do disagree with my thinking that slavery and apartheid are bad is more than just an opinion!

You were responding to Bust Nak (not me) http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 463#559463

I find it quite interesting that you blame White South Africans, when the historical evidence is against you. All you doing is using a broad brush to paint your position, when in fact you could have just said that Humans were to blame for Apartheid. Your argument is similar to saying all Blond Germans were for the killing of Jews, or all Germans were for the killing of Jews. Why not just say all humans were for the killing of Jews?
Do you think it would be better to find the correct "box" for this apartheid in SA, in stead of just saying it was White South Africans? Maybe read this history of this apartheid in SA and other countries before blaming one group that you define to make your argument?

Are you trying to argue that these White South Africans were Dutch, and the English had nothing to do with it, the churches had nothing to do with it, other Countries that had apartheid were only due to White Dutch South Africans?

I tried to give you the historical account for this apartheid rubbish, and you seem to want to pin this to a non-existing group in SA, and reject that other countries has apartheid where this this non-existent group clearly did not exist. That is quite interesting.

[ReligionSlayer]

But they do disagree with my thinking that slavery and apartheid are bad is more than just an opinion!

Yes, we do, I think you've spoken to enough atheists to know most of us are subjectivists/relativists. I was referring to seeing racism as evil and not inviting and white supremacist to tea.

So, people of different "colour" to white can not be supremacists?

[ReligionSlayer]

Goat seemed to be arguing that apartheid was bad because it was an inherently unstable basis for a society, not because Apartheid was inherently evil.

My view is that even if the apartheid systems was stable and sustainable (I note the slave based Roman society endured for hundreds of years) it would none the less be 'evil'.

No doubt there were many White South Africans who did not see apartheid as evil. Whether they were supporting an objective evil or not (I think they were), I wouldn't invite one of them to tea - especially as my wife is a rather attractively dusky Kikuyu!

Right..

Now, I will also say that 'Morality is a socially conditioned response'. Just because something is not 'inherently evil' doesn't mean that people can't have a strong emotional reaction against it. I am the product of my society, my upbrining, my own personal emotional reactions, and it's guided by enlightened self interest. Some people interest are not 'enlightened'. .. that is why you get the 'prosperity Christians'..

My own personal culture and social conditioning has a strong negative reaction against apartheid. My culture and up bringing allowed the development of empathy.

We also have evidence that empathy is stronger within group, that out of group or across groups.

Evidence for this is wars.

When your in-group goes to war against another group (out-group), why is that justified then? We even allow killing then? (remember murder is unlawful killing).

[Goat]

Goat seemed to be arguing that apartheid was bad because it was an inherently unstable basis for a society, not because Apartheid was inherently evil.

My view is that even if the apartheid systems was stable and sustainable (I note the slave based Roman society endured for hundreds of years) it would none the less be 'evil'.

No doubt there were many White South Africans who did not see apartheid as evil. Whether they were supporting an objective evil or not (I think they were), I wouldn't invite one of them to tea - especially as my wife is a rather attractively dusky Kikuyu!

Right..

Now, I will also say that 'Morality is a socially conditioned response'. Just because something is not 'inherently evil' doesn't mean that people can't have a strong emotional reaction against it. I am the product of my society, my upbrining, my own personal emotional reactions, and it's guided by enlightened self interest. Some people interest are not 'enlightened'. .. that is why you get the 'prosperity Christians'..

My own personal culture and social conditioning has a strong negative reaction against apartheid. My culture and up bringing allowed the development of empathy.

We also have evidence that empathy is stronger within group, that out of group or across groups.

Evidence for this is wars.

When your in-group goes to war against another group (out-group), why is that justified then? We even allow killing then? (remember murder is unlawful killing).

Yes, it is. However, we also have better communications now, and with faster knowledge and better understanding, more of the 'group' will turn into the human race, rather than 'just my neighbors'. We are a long long way from that yet, but I do see some progress going in that direction.

[ReligionSlayer]

Goat seemed to be arguing that apartheid was bad because it was an inherently unstable basis for a society, not because Apartheid was inherently evil.

My view is that even if the apartheid systems was stable and sustainable (I note the slave based Roman society endured for hundreds of years) it would none the less be 'evil'.

No doubt there were many White South Africans who did not see apartheid as evil. Whether they were supporting an objective evil or not (I think they were), I wouldn't invite one of them to tea - especially as my wife is a rather attractively dusky Kikuyu!

Right..

Now, I will also say that 'Morality is a socially conditioned response'. Just because something is not 'inherently evil' doesn't mean that people can't have a strong emotional reaction against it. I am the product of my society, my upbrining, my own personal emotional reactions, and it's guided by enlightened self interest. Some people interest are not 'enlightened'. .. that is why you get the 'prosperity Christians'..

My own personal culture and social conditioning has a strong negative reaction against apartheid. My culture and up bringing allowed the development of empathy.

We also have evidence that empathy is stronger within group, that out of group or across groups.

Evidence for this is wars.

When your in-group goes to war against another group (out-group), why is that justified then? We even allow killing then? (remember murder is unlawful killing).

Yes, it is. However, we also have better communications now, and with faster knowledge and better understanding, more of the 'group' will turn into the human race, rather than 'just my neighbors'. We are a long long way from that yet, but I do see some progress going in that direction.

Correct.

That support what I am trying to say, in that you can not just blame some fictitious group (White Dutch South Africans) for apartheid.

And again, I am not saying apartheid is 'good' or not 'bad'. But rather, you need to look at the circumstances (history, evolution, etc) before singling out a single fictitious non-existing 'group' for being responsible for apartheid as it may have been justified, similar to how slavery was justified, the middle east is still attempting to practice genocide..

We are making progress in society / morals. This is just more evidence for evolution (and not some cosmic tyrant with so called objective morals).

[Bust Nak]

Yes, we do, I think you've spoken to enough atheists to know most of us are subjectivists/relativists. I was referring to seeing racism as evil and not inviting and white supremacist to tea.

So, people of different "colour" to white can not be supremacists?

Sure they can. I can only conclude that this is a rhetorical question. You think what I said implies only white people can be supremacists?