Subjective Morality

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
The Tanager
Guru
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote:A piece of music. Borrowing your words: Seeing that "opinion is all there is" in country music leads you to conclude something like: "I dislike music." While seeing that "opinion is all there is" in classical music leads you to conclude something like: "I like music." You are reacting in different ways to the same observation/belief - and I would say there is more similarities between country and classical than between music taste and morality taste.
Seeing that "opinion is all there is" has nothing to do with my conclusions that "I dislike country music" and "like classical music." It leads to my conclusion that "I like it when people choose to listen to the music they like." If I thought "opinion is all there is" to morality, then I would conclude that "I like it when people choose to perform the moral action they like," so as to remain consistent. I don't think opinion is all there is with morality, though.
Bust Nak wrote:
All I'm meaning there is that people's personal likes/dislikes factor into what kind of thing music taste is. This is true whether everyone's personal likes/dislikes agree or not, although they usually do not on subjective things.
But people's personal ideas about what shape the Earth is does not factor into what kind of thing the shape of the Earth is?
People's personal ideas about the shape of the Earth don't factor in because there is an objective truth; opinion is not all there is there. It's not a subjective feature of reality. Music is subjective, however.
Bust Nak wrote:More importantly, if that's all you meant, then what's the problem with me disregarding Johnny's likes/dislike as his taste when I judge him?
The problem is that it shows the inconsistency I've been talking about. Subjectivism proper does not disregard people's personal likes/dislikes because opinion (i.e., personal likes/dislikes) is all there is. Disregarding a person's opinion is not acting as though opinion is all there is, but as though one opinion (in your case, your opinion) is truer than other opinions.
Bust Nak wrote:
It's because aesthetic value is subjective for each individual that I'm fine with people listening to those different musical styles.
That doesn't seem to answer my question. I asked you why "aesthetic value is subjective for each individual" lead to "The Tanager's fine with people listening to those different musical styles." Looks like you just repeated the same thing back to me.
If there is a truth, then one should believe that truth. Our beliefs and actions should take true things into account. If the Earth is a specific shape, then people should believe it has that shape. If what is good for people is to listen to the kind of music they like (as opposed to everyone listen to the same, 'objectively best' music), then people should do that. Since opinion is all there is in music taste, I have no good reason to be against people listening to the musical style that will bring them the most joy. So, I'm fine with it.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8632
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Seeing that "opinion is all there is" has nothing to do with my conclusions that "I dislike country music" and "like classical music." It leads to my conclusion that "I like it when people choose to listen to the music they like..."
Okay, that sounded like you started off as simple subjectivist then changed to a subjectivist proper. Is that not a problem any more? As for how it leads to your conclusion, see below.
People's personal ideas about the shape of the Earth don't factor in because there is an objective truth; opinion is not all there is there. It's not a subjective feature of reality. Music is subjective, however.
Here you start with the premise that the shape of the Earth is objective, then conclude that people's opinion about the shape of the Earth is not a factor, that much is simple enough. The problem is that when it comes to music, you seemed to be saying you started with the premise that people have lots of ideas about music, then concluded that music is subjective, and then reasoned that because music is subjective, people's ideas is a factor in the nature of music. That is circular reasoning.
The problem is that it shows the inconsistency I've been talking about. Subjectivism proper does not disregard people's personal likes/dislikes because opinion (i.e., personal likes/dislikes) is all there is. Disregarding a person's opinion is not acting as though opinion is all there is, but as though one opinion (in your case, your opinion) is truer than other opinions.
How do you tell whether 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?
If there is a truth, then one should believe that truth. Our beliefs and actions should take true things into account. If the Earth is a specific shape, then people should believe it has that shape.
Yes, that much is trivial. The problem is the next bit.
If what is good for people is to listen to the kind of music they like (as opposed to everyone listen to the same, 'objectively best' music), then people should do that. Since opinion is all there is in music taste, I have no good reason to be against people listening to the musical style that will bring them the most joy. So, I'm fine with it.
Does that mean I cannot have a good reason to be against people listening to the musical style that will bring them the most joy?

Perhaps more to the point, you are still begging the question: why does "aesthetic value is subjective for each individual" lead to "The Tanager's having no good reason to be against people listening to those different musical styles." There is still a gap between premise and conclusion.

User avatar
The Tanager
Guru
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote:
Seeing that "opinion is all there is" has nothing to do with my conclusions that "I dislike country music" and "like classical music." It leads to my conclusion that "I like it when people choose to listen to the music they like..."
Okay, that sounded like you started off as simple subjectivist then changed to a subjectivist proper. Is that not a problem any more?
My opinion is that opinion is all there is in regards to aesthetic value. That it is my opinion is simple subjectivism.

My opinion is that opinion is all there is in regards to aesthetic value. That opinion is all there is is what subjectivism proper is. Believing that to be true, it follows logically that I would be okay with people following their own subjective preferences. If there is no truth for me to appraise their opinion as objectively worse than my opinion, then I am irrational to think that their choice is a bad choice for them to make. Where bad is something other than "disagrees with my personal view."

Tim has a personal preference for rap music. Tim thinks music is subjective (proper). It is irrational for Tim to think that you should listen to rap music when you don't like it and would be pained by listening to it.

Alice has a personal preference for not abusing children. Alice thinks morality is subjective (proper). It is irrational for Alice to think that Johnny should not abuse children when Johnny likes to abuse children and would be pained by not abusing the child.
Bust Nak wrote:Here you start with the premise that the shape of the Earth is objective, then conclude that people's opinion about the shape of the Earth is not a factor, that much is simple enough. The problem is that when it comes to music, you seemed to be saying you started with the premise that people have lots of ideas about music, then concluded that music is subjective, and then reasoned that because music is subjective, people's ideas is a factor in the nature of music. That is circular reasoning.
I'm not trying to prove music is subjective or that morality is objective. I'm looking at consistency. The appraiser who thinks the shape of the earth is objective does not take into account the opinion of the person they are forming a judgment about. The appraiser judges that Johnny should not believe the earth is flat even though he is a flat-earther. That is consistent.

The appraiser who thinks the shape of the earth is subjective (proper) does take into account the opinion of the person they are forming a judgment about; "opinion is all there is." The appraiser judges that Johnny should believe the earth is flat, even though the appraiser prefers to think of the earth being round. That is consistent.

The appraiser who thinks aesthetic value is subjective (proper) does take into account the opinion of the person they are forming a judgment about. The appraiser judges that Johnny should listen to country music because it brings him joy, even though it doesn't bring the appraiser joy. That is consistent.

The appraiser who thinks moral value is subjective (proper) should also take into account the opinion of the person they are forming a judgment about. The appraiser judges that Johnny should abuse the child because he sees it as good, even though the appraiser would not experience joy if she abused a child. That would be consistent. But you judge that Johnny should not abuse the child, right?
Bust Nak wrote:How do you tell whether 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?
Because you judge Johnny's abuse as wrong (in a sense that isn't just "different than what I like"...which would be simple subjectivism) even though his subjective preference says it is right. You aren't acting as though opinions are all there is. You are saying his opinion is wrong (in a sense that isn't just "different than what he likes"...which would be simple subjectivism) for him. If you are saying his opinion is right (in a sense that isn't just "the same as what he prefers"...which would be simple subjectivism) for him, then you would be fine with him abusing the child.
Bust Nak wrote:
If what is good for people is to listen to the kind of music they like (as opposed to everyone listen to the same, 'objectively best' music), then people should do that. Since opinion is all there is in music taste, I have no good reason to be against people listening to the musical style that will bring them the most joy. So, I'm fine with it.
Does that mean I cannot have a good reason to be against people listening to the musical style that will bring them the most joy?

Perhaps more to the point, you are still begging the question: why does "aesthetic value is subjective for each individual" lead to "The Tanager's having no good reason to be against people listening to those different musical styles." There is still a gap between premise and conclusion.
I think I've seen it as more definitional than an argument. I'm definitely open to being corrected of that. It seems to me that to have a reason to be against X means having some standard to judge the reason by. Subjectivism proper says there is no standard to judge the personal opinions by, so it has no reason to offer against any opinion; no opinion is wrong. The opinions differ from each other, but aren't wrong in any other sense. I think you've said there is another sense of 'wrong' at times, but I'm not clear on what that sense is.

What is another good reason to be against people listening to the musical style that will bring them the most joy? Note that we're talking about it as a musical style. If one believed the specific content could lead to, say, mistreating others, then that would be a separate issue. One wouldn't be critiquing listening to the musical style but the content. Any style of music can have "good" content.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8632
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: My opinion is that opinion is all there is in regards to aesthetic value. That it is my opinion is simple subjectivism.

My opinion is that opinion is all there is in regards to aesthetic value. That opinion is all there is is what subjectivism proper is.
Right, so you are switching from simple subjectivism and subjectivism proper on the fly.
Believing that to be true, it follows logically that I would be okay with people following their own subjective preferences. If there is no truth for me to appraise their opinion as objectively worse than my opinion, then I am irrational to think that their choice is a bad choice for them to make. Where bad is something other than "disagrees with my personal view."
In which case this is completely moot since bad is synonymous with "disagrees with my personal view" when it comes to subjective matters.
I'm not trying to prove music is subjective or that morality is objective. I'm looking at consistency. The appraiser who thinks the shape of the earth is objective does not take into account the opinion of the person they are forming a judgment about. The appraiser judges that Johnny should not believe the earth is flat even though he is a flat-earther. That is consistent.
Yep.
The appraiser who thinks the shape of the earth is subjective (proper) does take into account the opinion of the person they are forming a judgment about; "opinion is all there is."

The appraiser who thinks aesthetic value is subjective (proper) does take into account the opinion of the person they are forming a judgment about.

The appraiser who thinks moral value is subjective (proper) should also take into account the opinion of the person they are forming a judgment about.
Why are these appraisers taking into account the opinion of the person they are forming a judgment though? We are no longer referring to the nature of the shape of the Earth, the nature of aesthetic value or the nature of moral value at that point, they are to switch back to simple subjectivism; they same way you switch back to simple subjectivism when you judge pieces of music after evaluating what kind of thing music taste is.
Because you judge Johnny's abuse as wrong (in a sense that isn't just "different than what I like"...which would be simple subjectivism)...
But I am judging Johnny's abuse as wrong in a sense that is just "different than what I like." I stated so many times.
I think I've seen it as more definitional than an argument. I'm definitely open to being corrected of that.
How about a straight up counter-example? "Morality is subjective for each individual" and "Bust Nak having good reason to be against people doing things in a different moral style - I really don't like it, it makes me angry and sad."
It seems to me that to have a reason to be against X means having some standard to judge the reason by. Subjectivism proper says there is no standard to judge the personal opinions by...
Subjectivism proper doesn't say that. Instead it says there is no objective standard to judge the personal opinions by, it says there are as many standard to judge the personal opinions by as there are appraisers.
What is another good reason to be against people listening to the musical style that will bring them the most joy?
Something along the lines of "I hate that style so much that no one should be listening to it."

User avatar
The Tanager
Guru
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote:Right, so you are switching from simple subjectivism and subjectivism proper on the fly.
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. 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...
Bust Nak wrote:
Believing that to be true, it follows logically that I would be okay with people following their own subjective preferences. If there is no truth for me to appraise their opinion as objectively worse than my opinion, then I am irrational to think that their choice is a bad choice for them to make. Where bad is something other than "disagrees with my personal view."
In which case this is completely moot since bad is synonymous with "disagrees with my personal view" when it comes to subjective matters.
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? 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."
Bust Nak wrote:
The appraiser who thinks the shape of the earth is subjective (proper) does take into account the opinion of the person they are forming a judgment about; "opinion is all there is."

The appraiser who thinks aesthetic value is subjective (proper) does take into account the opinion of the person they are forming a judgment about.

The appraiser who thinks moral value is subjective (proper) should also take into account the opinion of the person they are forming a judgment about.
Why are these appraisers taking into account the opinion of the person they are forming a judgment though? We are no longer referring to the nature of the shape of the Earth, the nature of aesthetic value or the nature of moral value at that point, they are to switch back to simple subjectivism; they same way you switch back to simple subjectivism when you judge pieces of music after evaluating what kind of thing music taste is.
They take the opinion into account because opinion is all there is to take into account. There is nothing else to compare that opinion with as more or less true or good. About the Earth, we have something other than opinion to consider.

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."
Bust Nak wrote:But I am judging Johnny's abuse as wrong in a sense that is just "different than what I like." I stated so many times.
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."
Bust Nak wrote:
I think I've seen it as more definitional than an argument. I'm definitely open to being corrected of that.
How about a straight up counter-example? "Morality is subjective for each individual" and "Bust Nak having good reason to be against people doing things in a different moral style - I really don't like it, it makes me angry and sad."
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.
Bust Nak wrote:
It seems to me that to have a reason to be against X means having some standard to judge the reason by. Subjectivism proper says there is no standard to judge the personal opinions by...
Subjectivism proper doesn't say that. Instead it says there is no objective standard to judge the personal opinions by, it says there are as many standard to judge the personal opinions by as there are appraisers.
I meant "no one standard..." but I think that applies to each appraiser.
Bust Nak wrote:
What is another good reason to be against people listening to the musical style that will bring them the most joy?
Something along the lines of "I hate that style so much that no one should be listening to it."
Why is that a good reason? 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?

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8632
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Bust Nak »

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.

User avatar
The Tanager
Guru
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am

Re: Subjective Morality

Post by The Tanager »

Finally got into the new system...
Bust Nak wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:54 am
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.
Yes, I think so.
Bust Nak wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:54 am
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."
Could you reword the last sentence?
Bust Nak wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:54 am
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.)
Your latter sentence is talking about simple subjectivism. When I form my personal opinion on whether a piece of music is good, I do not take other people's personal opinions into account.

But if I'm addressing what kind of thing all of our opinions about music are, then I need to consider whether there is a true view or not. If there is a true view, then that is a rational reason to be against those whose opinion differs and not want them to act against that truth. If there is no true view, then I see no rational reason think our opinion is better than another opinion. I see no reason to be against those whose opinions differ from ours or to be against their actions which differ from our preferred ones. I don't mean a rational reason for me to hold the opinion I do of the musical piece or for me to act in accord with my personal opinion by listening to one piece and not the other, but to be against them performing their action.
Bust Nak wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:54 am
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.
What does the bolded "Johnny is not wrong" mean to you? If it is "disagrees with my personal view," then that is simple subjectivism. If it is not, then what does it mean to you?
Bust Nak wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:54 am
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.
The simple subjectivism judgment is "it's different than what I like." What is the different subjectivism proper judgment? Saying it's your simple subjectivism plus "nothing" is not a difference.
Bust Nak wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:54 am
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.
But that's trivially true. Of course the standard you use to judge/appraise is the standard you use. And the standard I use is the one I use. That is not what the objectivism/subjectivism proper debate is about. Accepting this has nothing to do with moral subjectivism proper.
Bust Nak wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:54 am
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?
I'm not sure if I understand what you are asking here. I think there are three options on appraising people's actions. We judge each person by one standard (objectivism), judge different groups each by one standard which is different from the others (cultural relativism), or we judge each individual by different standards (subjectivism proper). The second and third options involve the appraiser having not one standard, but multiple ones.

Judging all people's actions by one standard is to make pronouncements of an opinion being better or truer than another. If you only mean this in the sense of "different than my view," that's fine, but that's simple subjectivism. To say that not only is that different than my view, but (now subjectivism proper) there is no one standard to judge everyone's opinions by. The subjectivist proper believes that is true. They believe that their personal opinion is not a standard to judge other people's opinions and actions by. They say "I shouldn't abuse the child, but Johnny should abuse the child" because opinion is all there is and each person should be judged by their opinions.

Post Reply