Deviancy in subjective morality

[bluethread]

It has been proposed that morality is subjective and is established over time as certain behaviors are deemed to be counter productive by consensus. If that is indeed the case, then don't deviants provide an important public service by helping to define the limits of acceptable behavior and affecting social change. Given that progressives seem to believe that current morality is always superior to previous morality, aren't today's deviants to be respected as brave pioneers for engaging in antisocial behaviors that may very well become the norm tomorrow?

[bluethread]

You need to be more specific with what matter you mean. Again, I point to the analogy with gravity. I have no choice in being affected by gravity, but that is not to say I have no choice in what I do under the effect of gravity.

In the same way I did not choose to feel repulsed by murder, but I am choosing to refrain from murder, I am choosing to punish murderers.

I have never thought of morality as a visceral reaction. However, that might be the basis of morality for some. I would think that refraining from an activity and punishing others for that activity would be more in line with morality.

They just live according to a moral code that just, is or they just live and pay not attention to any moral code?

Have you every done things that you considered wrong? Does that mean you don't live according to a moral code? I am much more comfortable in saying we try to live according to our own moral code.

As for the meat of your question, I would say neither, we do try and live according to a moral code, but it isn't one that "just is" but one that is the result of instinct, upbrining and other social conditioning.

This brings us back to the OP. What of those who's instinct, upbringing and/or social conditioning are at odds with those of the society in which they currently reside? On what basis does a society based on subjective morality resolve these conflicts?

[Divine Insight]

This brings us back to the OP. What of those who's instinct, upbringing and/or social conditioning are at odds with those of the society in which they currently reside? On what basis does a society based on subjective morality resolve these conflicts?

I think I believe can help the "resolution" of such conflicts is to recognize that what might be right for some may not be right for others. This is the whole idea behind subjective morality.

Moreover, why would society need to resolve moral issues in any case? Morality should not be the basis of social laws in the first place. Social laws should be considered only to the extent that they might cause someone harm. As I have already pointed out we have plenty of traffic laws to insure the safety of people sharing common highways. These laws have nothing at all to do with morality. They are (or at least should be) considered solely on the basis of safety.

When you start talking about making social laws based on morality you're already getting in to an extremely ill-defined area. Why should morality be the basis of social laws? And who's to say what's moral anyway?

If the society itself does not come up with what they deem to be immoral, then from whence are they going to obtain these moral codes and laws?

That's the big question right there Bluethread. If you want some sort of "objective absolute morality" to be the basis of social laws, then where are you going to come up with these supposedly "objective absolute morals"?

That's the problem right there. The Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam want to point to their religious dogmas as the guidelines for morality, but there already exists huge opposition and disagreement over what those moralities even are. And this opposition and disagreement doesn't come solely from outside of these religions. These religions themselves have vastly different ideas of what should be moral or immoral. Not only between the major three factions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but even within each of those factions internally. The Jews don't all agree. The Christians certainty don't all agree, and neither do all the Muslims agree.

So where would we find any "objective absolute morality" to follow anyway?

That choice isn't even open to us. It's not even a viable choice.

The only choice we have is to consider moral issues subjectively and try to come to a consensus on them as best we can. Reality teaches us that we are never going to achieve 100% consensus on the concept of morality because we don't all agree on what is moral (just like the Abrahamic religions don't agree with each other)

When it comes to morality we need to allow for individual subjective views. For me, homosexuality may be "immoral" for me to participate in. But for someone else it may be perfectly moral. We simply have no reason to demand that it must be absolutely moral or immoral for everyone.

And as I've already pointed out several times, when it comes to making social laws the criteria should be safety, not morality. Laws should be to protect people from each other, etc. Not for the purpose of demanding that everyone must live by a specific moral code.

We're in the sub-forum "Right and Wrong". The first thing we need to do here is recognize that "Right and Wrong" doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with morality. In a traffic laws it's right to drive through a green light, it's wrong to drive through a red light. It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with safety.

Right and Wrong doesn't even need to be about morality. It could be about safety.

If you want to pass "moral judgement" on those who break the safety laws, then fine. You can do that. But there is no need for any moral judgement within the legal system itself. If you drive through a red light and cause an accident you are in the "Wrong". Whether you did this on purpose or for some totally innocent reason is irrelevant. So laws really aren't so much concerned with morality in any case.

A jury in a trial might be concerned with morality. If you went through a red light and caused an accident and were clearly innocent in intent they would tend to be a lot easier on you than had you confessed to purposefully driving through the red light with intent to cause an accident.

It's not that they can't consider intention (or moral issues) in trials. But the laws themselves do not need to be based on morality at all.

We don't need a code of morality for making laws.

And when we judge people on their intent (i.e. judge their morality) we do so subjectively based on what we personally feel their intention was.

So I think morality (in the form of intent) is naturally covered in jury systems. But the laws themselves really don't even need to take morality into consideration at all.

We already have a subjective legal system. Although some of our current laws may very well be based on "religious morality" when in fact, they shouldn't be. Like the Blue Laws on the Sabbath for example.

And we certainly shouldn't have laws against homosexuality or same-gender marriage. That's absurd.

[Bust Nak]

I have never thought of morality as a visceral reaction.

Really? Do you not have a visceral reaction against murder?

However, that might be the basis of morality for some. I would think that refraining from an activity and punishing others for that activity would be more in line with morality.

What made you think visceral reaction and morality is not sides of the same coin?

This brings us back to the OP. What of those who's instinct, upbringing and/or social conditioning are at odds with those of the society in which they currently reside? On what basis does a society based on subjective morality resolve these conflicts?

There are any number of ways I can phrase the same thing, it depends on people's opinion on what should be done. Without specifics, I can only tell you, it depends.

A final comment about a society based on subjective morality. What do you think it would look like? What made you think the typical western/"westernised" society would not qualify as a society based on subjective morality? You may well be living in such a society and you just look around to see how one operates with your own eyes.

[bluethread]

This brings us back to the OP. What of those who's instinct, upbringing and/or social conditioning are at odds with those of the society in which they currently reside? On what basis does a society based on subjective morality resolve these conflicts?

I think I believe can help the "resolution" of such conflicts is to recognize that what might be right for some may not be right for others. This is the whole idea behind subjective morality.

Moreover, why would society need to resolve moral issues in any case? Morality should not be the basis of social laws in the first place. Social laws should be considered only to the extent that they might cause someone harm. As I have already pointed out we have plenty of traffic laws to insure the safety of people sharing common highways. These laws have nothing at all to do with morality. They are (or at least should be) considered solely on the basis of safety.

I don't think that there is any moral system that does not recognize that what might be right for some may not be right for others. It is just a matter of degree. Your example shows how a moral principle of "Social laws should be considered only to the extent that they might cause someone harm." We have many traffic laws based on that moral principle. However, the initial reason that the 55 mph speed limit was imposed by Jimmy Carter was not because 55 saves lives. It was put in place because of the principle that it is immoral to use fossil fuels any more than necessary. This was later repealed, as was prohibition. So, was the 55 mph speed limit justified by this subjective moral principle, or was it the imposition of an objective moral principle, and those in Montana who ignored the law were heroic for opposing it?

A current example is the ACA. It was passed based not on the principle that all should have access to medical care, which could be justified by the moral principle that you proposed. It was passed based on the moral principle that everyone should have health insurance. Should we see this as the workings of subjective morality or the imposition of an objective morality?

Your references to didactic theism are really beside the point. We are examining subjective morality and how it works.

[bluethread]

I have never thought of morality as a visceral reaction.

Really? Do you not have a visceral reaction against murder?

However, that might be the basis of morality for some. I would think that refraining from an activity and punishing others for that activity would be more in line with morality.

What made you think visceral reaction and morality is not sides of the same coin?

Yes, I do have a visceral reaction to murder, but that is not the reason it is immoral. I have a visceral reaction to gutting fish, but I do not find it immoral. A visceral reaction may be a factor, but it is not the primary justification. As I said, some may find gutting fish to be immoral, if theirs is a visceral morality.

This brings us back to the OP. What of those who's instinct, upbringing and/or social conditioning are at odds with those of the society in which they currently reside? On what basis does a society based on subjective morality resolve these conflicts?

There are any number of ways I can phrase the same thing, it depends on people's opinion on what should be done. Without specifics, I can only tell you, it depends.

A final comment about a society based on subjective morality. What do you think it would look like? What made you think the typical western/"westernised" society would not qualify as a society based on subjective morality? You may well be living in such a society and you just look around to see how one operates with your own eyes.

I do not have clear answers to those questions. That is why I opened the thread. That said, on what does it depend? For example, if a society subjectively finds red to be an immoral color, what is to be done with those who wear red?

[Divine Insight]

Your references to didactic theism are really beside the point. We are examining subjective morality and how it works.

The only point I'm making is that unless you plan on putting morality into law, then how subjective morality might "work" is a rather meaningless question isn't it?

My subjective morality already "works" for me. I don't need your approval.

So as far as I'm concerned subjective morality is already working just fine.

I don't understand what you are even attempting to get at in terms of it "working" for society as a whole. Unless you're planning on putting morality into law, what exactly is it that you are concerned with?

My subjective morality already "works" for me.

[Bust Nak]

Yes, I do have a visceral reaction to murder, but that is not the reason it is immoral. I have a visceral reaction to gutting fish, but I do not find it immoral. A visceral reaction may be a factor, but it is not the primary justification. As I said, some may find gutting fish to be immoral, if theirs is a visceral morality.

If you do have a visceral reaction to murder then surely the idea that morality is tied to visceral reaction would cross your mind? I am betting that your reaction to gutting fish does not disgust you the same degree murder would.

I do not have clear answers to those questions. That is why I opened the thread. That said, on what does it depend?

There is no clear answer because the question isn't specific enough. Like I said eariler there is no clear answer as to what a society would do with paintings either, it depends on individual paintings. What does it depends on, it depends on how people feel about each painting.

For example, if a society subjectively finds red to be an immoral color, what is to be done with those who wear red?

Something to discourage the expression of red. As for what that would be exactly, you need to be give more detail with how exactly does the society in question think of the color red.

IF the society thinks those who wear red should be punished by jail time, THEN they will be thrown in jail. IF the society thinks those who wear red should be executed, THEN they will be executed. IF the society thinks those who wear red should be pay extra tax, THEN they will be charged more for red clothes and so on. You know, the same way I would imagine a society which insists that red is an objectively immoral color would operate?

I still want to know how you envision a society based on subjective moraltiy would look like. You seem to think it would be something that would be totally alien to the typical English speaker.

[Divine Insight]

For example, if a society subjectively finds red to be an immoral color, what is to be done with those who wear red?

I think there are two things fundamentally wrong with your approach here.

To begin with you seem to be treating subjective morality as an absolute. You're trying to make it into an objective morality via social consensus of the majority or something.

But that's already the wrong way to even think of subjective morality. A society that recognizes and acknowledges that morality is subjective is not then going to revert back to trying to force a socially "objective morality" onto everyone.

This appears to be what your are attempting to do. You are simply imagining subjective morality being treated as though its some sort of objective absolute. But the whole point of acknowledging that morality is subjective is to move away from that mentality.

You seem to be trying to force an objective morality whilst simply labeling it as subjective.

The second thing that you are clearly doing is wanting to them put this "objective-subjective morality" into law. This clearly when you ask, "what ware we do do with these people who are no in harmony with our collective subjective morality?

That implies that you see the society as putting their collective subjective morality into law.

The whole idea behind recognizing that morality is indeed subjective is to acknowledge that it's not an absolute. Morality shouldn't be the basis of laws anyway. Therefore it's meaningless to ask what we should do with people who aren't in harmony with some imagined collective objective-subjective morality.

That misses the entire point that morality is subjective in the first place.

Morality shouldn't be put into law to begin with.

Laws should be based on nothing other than the protection and safety of the citizens of the society. It shouldn't have anything at all to do what any individuals think is moral or immoral.

You're entire concern appears to be based on putting morality into law.

That would no longer be an issue when morality is recognized as being subjective opinions.

We simply don't need to put morality into law. It's just not necessary.

[bluethread]

Your references to didactic theism are really beside the point. We are examining subjective morality and how it works.

The only point I'm making is that unless you plan on putting morality into law, then how subjective morality might "work" is a rather meaningless question isn't it?

My subjective morality already "works" for me. I don't need your approval.

So as far as I'm concerned subjective morality is already working just fine.

I don't understand what you are even attempting to get at in terms of it "working" for society as a whole. Unless you're planning on putting morality into law, what exactly is it that you are concerned with?

My subjective morality already "works" for me.

You are ignoring your own example. You say, "Social laws should be considered only to the extent that they might cause someone harm." That is a statement of morality. Is that just something you say, or do you require society to enact laws according to that moral standard?

[bluethread]

For example, if a society subjectively finds red to be an immoral color, what is to be done with those who wear red?

I think there are two things fundamentally wrong with your approach here.

To begin with you seem to be treating subjective morality as an absolute. You're trying to make it into an objective morality via social consensus of the majority or something.

But that's already the wrong way to even think of subjective morality. A society that recognizes and acknowledges that morality is subjective is not then going to revert back to trying to force a socially "objective morality" onto everyone.

This appears to be what your are attempting to do. You are simply imagining subjective morality being treated as though its some sort of objective absolute. But the whole point of acknowledging that morality is subjective is to move away from that mentality.

You seem to be trying to force an objective morality whilst simply labeling it as subjective.

I have not required anything. I have merely asked how a society that practices subjective morality works. When you say, "Social laws should be considered only to the extent that they might cause someone harm." is that a subjective statement or an objective statement. You are free to say it is either, or both, as long as you can explain your answer.

The second thing that you are clearly doing is wanting to them put this "objective-subjective morality" into law. This clearly when you ask, "what ware we do do with these people who are no in harmony with our collective subjective morality?

That implies that you see the society as putting their collective subjective morality into law.

So, how does one use this subjective morality? Is it just a mental exercise?

The whole idea behind recognizing that morality is indeed subjective is to acknowledge that it's not an absolute. Morality shouldn't be the basis of laws anyway. Therefore it's meaningless to ask what we should do with people who aren't in harmony with some imagined collective objective-subjective morality.

That misses the entire point that morality is subjective in the first place.

Morality shouldn't be put into law to begin with.

Laws should be based on nothing other than the protection and safety of the citizens of the society. It shouldn't have anything at all to do what any individuals think is moral or immoral.

You're entire concern appears to be based on putting morality into law.

That would no longer be an issue when morality is recognized as being subjective opinions.

We simply don't need to put morality into law. It's just not necessary.

What makes the protection and safety of the citizens of the society the basis for law?What of the society that puts laws into place for the protection of the despot, without regard for the protection and safety of the citizens? Why shouldn't that be the basis of law? Aren't those two different moral standards?