The Tanager wrote:
I don't have a problem with addressing both issues. The problem is that it seems, at times, that when I ask you to explain your understanding of subjectivism proper, the explanation looks like simple subjectivism.
I keep saying opinion is all there is to it. That does not look like simple subjectivism, does it? That much is settled, right? The still contentious bit is whether this implies being okay with other people's opinions on the matter.
The problem is the possible confusion of the two. I accept that the confusion may be on my part. I'm seeking clarity. For example...
Earlier I was under the impression that one had to be subjectivist proper all the time to be consistent, we've since established that it's okay to be switching between the two. Previously, when I judge music, I didn't think I was revert back to simple subjectivism, since I still hold the belief that opinion is all there is to music, but now with this new understanding of what you meant by switching to simple subjectivism, I am fine with affirming that I switch between simple and proper subjectivism all the time.
Simple subjectivism covers statements like "my opinion is X," "Johnny's opinion is Y," and comparing the content of those opinions so that we get "Johnny's opinion disagrees with my personal view."
Subjectivism proper says something more than simple subjectivism. I'm trying to pin down what you are saying that 'more' is. Your response to that, here, seems to be that wrong/bad/immoral in its non-objective sense only means "disagrees with my personal view." But that's a statement of simple subjectivism. What's the more?
It's "opinion is all there is." Yes, but what does that mean?
So far so good.
For morality, you say that this means that Johnny's action is 'wrong' or 'bad' or 'immoral' in a way different than simple subjectivism, but for this to be more than simple subjectivism you must mean these terms in a way that does not mean "disagrees with my personal view."
Nah, the more to it bit is that there is no objective standard to judge morality by. That doesn't mean "wrong" means any other than "disagrees with my personal view."
They take the opinion into account because opinion is all there is to take into account.
I meant opinion beyond their own opinion why would they take that into account. You don't take other people's opinion into account when you judge the merit of a piece music, (as opposed to the nature of music taste.)
When I judge pieces of music, I judge them in two ways. Within the category of simple subjectivism, I say things like "I like folk music," "Bust Nak likes classical music," "Johnny likes rap music," "Johnny disagrees with Bust Nak's view." Within subjectivism proper, I say "Johnny is not wrong about rap music being good for him to listen to because the standard to judge that is his personal preference. He really does gain benefit from listening to rap music."
Right, and I do the same thing with morality, I judge it in two ways. Within the category of simple subjectivism, I say things like "I like don't like abusing children," "Johnny likes abusing children," "Johnny disagrees with Bust Nak's view." Within subjectivism proper, I say "Johnny is not wrong about abusing children being good for him because the standard to judge that is his personal preference. He really does gain benefit from listening to abusing children."
What I still don't get is why I must not have a problem with him abusing children to be consistent with the above.
Which is a statement of simple subjectivism. The more, "opinion is all there is," to be more than simple subjectivism must mean something different than just "different than what I like."
It's not different as such, it's just more. It's different than what I like plus
there is no objective standard to just likes and dislike by. The first part is simple subjectivism, the latter part is subjectivism proper, I switch between them on the fly, just as you do with music.
If morality is subjective (proper), then I don't think that is a good reason to be against people doing things in a different moral style. I understand and agree that it making you angry and sad is a good reason for you to have the opinion that you are against it.
If you accept that much, then what objection do you have against the logical consistency for moral subjectivism? What is and isn't a good reason depends on who is doing the judging. You don't think it's a good reason, but that is only relevant when you are the appraiser. You accept that it's a good reason for me. This isn't a matter of logical inconsistency, but a matter of The Tanager dislike this reason, Bust Nak likes this reason, The Tanager disagrees with Bust Nak's view. Having a reason to be against X means having some standard to judge the reason by: Given this is a subjective matter, the standard here is mine, when I am the appraiser, yours when you are the appraiser, or Johnny's when he is the appraiser.
I meant "no one standard..." but I think that applies to each appraiser.
Right, so where does that leave you when it comes to determining if I am acting as if my opinion is better than their opinion, or if I am acting as if my opinion is truer
than other opinions? Where does that leave your suggestion that "aesthetic value is subjective for each individual" leads to "The Tanager's having no good reason to be against people listening to those different musical styles" by definition?
Why is that a good reason?
That depends on how much you share that hate for rap music. If you don't hate that style to the bone, then it won't be a good reason, if you do, then it's a good reason because it matches your view.
If they like it, it brings them joy to listen to it, and would sadden them to not listen to it, and they aren't hurting (if that even means anything objective) other people by listening to it (including that you won't hear it), and they aren't hurting themself by listening to it, then why is your hatred of the style a good reason for them to not listen to it?
Why would the amount of joy it brings to them be a factor when they are not the appraiser? I am the one judging if it is okay for them to listen to rap. I am not offering a reason for them, they have their own reasons. I am given you a good reason for me - you asked me for a good reason, you are not asking them.
PS Just in case it needs stating, this is hypothetical, I don't actually dislike rap music that much.
PPS The above once again highlights the ambiguity with the terms "for them." "It's a good reason, for them to stop" means "it's a good reason according to me to object to their listening to rap;" "it's not a reason for them, to stop" means "they wouldn't accept it as a good reason." Hopefully the additional comma would help illustrate what I mean here.