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.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

At times you seem to understand the difference, but you you're arguing against recognizing that difference.

It's as if you were arguing that every Kansan is an American, and that therefore the two words are synonymous.

It may be true that all absolute moral systems are objective, but that (a) remains to be proved, and (b) doesn't make "absolute" and "objective" into synonyms.

[wiploc]

Since there is absolutely no evidence anywhere for any objective morality, and human cultures and human individuals cannot even agree on any consistent moral values, why should we think that any objective or absolute moral values exist at all?

A moral rule that everyone should punch the person to their left would be absolute. The rule has no exceptions.

A moral rule that people have to spit on anyone they meet who is taller than them would be objective. Who's taller can be scientifically determined. It's not a matter of opinion.

So, without being sure whether I'm complicating things or simplifying them, let me suggest that our real quest is for moral realism. We want to know whether there is a morality that we really ought to comply with.

If not, then, as William Lane Craig likes to accuse relativists of believing, no behavior is better than any other, kindness is no better than cruelty.

Or, as I like to think of it (and perhaps I am alone in this), the question is whether morality is really oughty.

You believe gods are necessary precursors to oughts, but I don't see how they could be relevant.

[Divine Insight]

It may be true that all absolute moral systems are objective, but that (a) remains to be proved, and (b) doesn't make "absolute" and "objective" into synonyms.

With all due respect all I see here is a meaningless semantic argument.

I mean you can argue that your own personal subjective opinions on morality are "absolute" with respect to you. In other words, you refuse to change your moral opinions. And therefore you are claiming that they are "absolute".

Yes, you could semantically use the term "absolute" in that way. But doesn't that miss the point in a discussion on morality?

If your opinions on morality are not "universal" (i.e. an objective property of reality) then while they may be "absolute" to you, (i.e. carved in stone in your own mind) they are not "absolute" in any broader sense.

When talking about "Absolute Morality" we're talking about a single system or code of morality that necessarily applies to everyone without exception. This then requires that this absolute morality must necessarily then also be "Objective Morality".

In other words, it's an objective property of reality.

So in this sense, when speaking about morality it's kind of meaningless to speak of a so-called "Absolute Morality" that isn't also "Objective Morality". And conversely if a system of morality is "objective" (i.e. existing as an objective aspect of reality), then this would also make it "Absolute" in the sense that it would be an absolute system of morality that everyone would be held to.

So I don't see where semantic arguments over the use of Objective and Absolute are meaningful when speaking of morality. Any Objective morality must necessary be absolute (i.e. the same for everyone). And any morality that is claimed to be Absolute, must be carved in stone is some objective sense, otherwise in what sense could it be said to be "absolute".

So when discussing the concept of morality I don't see the point in arguing over semantic differences between the terms "Objective" and "Absolute". Unless you're going to argue for a dynamic objective moral code that changes on the fly? But that would be kind of ridiculous wouldn't it?

[Divine Insight]

So, without being sure whether I'm complicating things or simplifying them, let me suggest that our real quest is for moral realism. We want to know whether there is a morality that we really ought to comply with.

That's a good point. But what would "ought to comply with" mean? Why should we comply? What would be the consequence of not complying? In other words, what gives the "ought" any meaning?

If not, then, as William Lane Craig likes to accuse relativists of believing, no behavior is better than any other, kindness is no better than cruelty.

This is because William Lane Craig cannot think outside of the box of absolute or objective morality. He wants to pass absolute moral judgements on things whether or not such absolute judgements exist. He refuses to let go of the idea of an absolute objective moral judgement.

Or, as I like to think of it (and perhaps I am alone in this), the question is whether morality is really oughty.

You believe gods are necessary precursors to oughts, but I don't see how they could be relevant.

If there are no gods to enforce what supposedly 'ought' to be done then what would make a specific action "oughty"?

Who decides what "ought" to be done in a given situation? Humans certainly can't agree among themselves because they all hold different subjective opinions on what "ought" to be done.

So all you've done here is complicate the discussion even further by replacing "morality" with another term called "oughty".

I don't see where that helps anything.

[Artie]

Therefore, we can at least be certain that humans are indeed holding out their own personal subjective opinions on morality rather than reflecting any objective or absolute morality.

What about the universe itself? Does it appear to be constructed according to any objective or absolute rules of morality? I would say no. The world doesn't appear to be based on any objective moral principles.

If all the people in a society help each other it leads to a prosperous and well-functioning society with happy people. If all the people in a society murder each other you have only one person and no society left. So we say that helping is good and right and moral behavior and murdering each other is bad and wrong and immoral behavior. If you were of the subjective opinion that it would be good for a society if everybody murdered each other you would be objectively wrong. People can have subjective opinions about what is the objectively right thing to do in each situation but that doesn't mean that morality is subjective. It just means that we want to do what is objectively moral in each situation but disagree on what that is.

[Divine Insight]

Therefore, we can at least be certain that humans are indeed holding out their own personal subjective opinions on morality rather than reflecting any objective or absolute morality.

What about the universe itself? Does it appear to be constructed according to any objective or absolute rules of morality? I would say no. The world doesn't appear to be based on any objective moral principles.

If all the people in a society help each other it leads to a prosperous and well-functioning society with happy people. If all the people in a society murder each other you have only one person and no society left. So we say that helping is good and right and moral behavior and murdering each other is bad and wrong and immoral behavior. If you were of the subjective opinion that it would be good for a society if everybody murdered each other you would be objectively wrong. People can have subjective opinions about what is the objectively right thing to do in each situation but that doesn't mean that morality is subjective. It just means that we want to do what is objectively moral in each situation but disagree on what that is.

I basically agree with the bulk of what you've said here, but I would like to point out a potential flaw in the following statement:

If you were of the subjective opinion that it would be good for a society if everybody murdered each other you would be objectively wrong.

I would suggest that your mistake here is to accept the premise that to cause the extinction of humans would be somehow objectively morally wrong.

But where's the justification for this? Even this amounts to nothing more than a subjective human position on things.

Apes, for example, might say, "Yes! Please exterminate the humans so we can then have room to evolve to become the next species to give world domination a try".

My point being that the very idea that the extermination of humans represents some obvious objective moral principle is still just a human subjective construct.

In fact, humans may very well become extinct. It certainly appears that we are trying hard to destroy ourselves by ruining the biosphere that supports us.

So after humans dead and gone what happens then?

Does objective morality cease to exist?

Will there be any objective morality for whatever biological creatures might evolve to sentience next?

Was it objectively immoral for the dinosaurs to have become extinct?

What about all the other myriad of species that have become extinct?

What would objective morality have to say about those situations?

What makes humans an exemption to the rule?

So I would suggest that even the idea that it would be immoral to kill off all humans is still a human subjective construction.

Of course you can argue that scientifically speaking if all humans are killed off this can't be "Good" for the human species. Thus making this seem like a rock solid objective conclusion.

But it's still a relative conclusion. It would only be "not good" for the human species. Not necessarily objectively "not good" for the universe as a whole.

In fact, some humans would even suggest that killing off humans would bring an end to human suffering which they would claim to be a "Good Thing".

So you can probably offer up "objective" arguments for both cases.

Killing off all humans would certainly bring an "objective end" to human suffering. Who can argue against that?

So then if we conclude that bringing human suffering to and end is a "good thing" then to kill off all humans must necessarily also be a "good thing as this would surely end all human suffering.

So trying to pin down any sort of "objective absolute morality" proves to be quite illusive.

[Artie]

I would suggest that your mistake here is to accept the premise that to cause the extinction of humans would be somehow objectively morally wrong.

No, I haven't accepted any such premise. Behaving immorally, that is detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society, might lead to the extinction of humans as a consequence.

My point being that the very idea that the extermination of humans represents some obvious objective moral principle is still just a human subjective construct.

No it isn't. Our brains that are wired for moral behavior are a result of evolution and natural selection which are just natural automatic objective processes. Those brains were not subjectively constructed by humans but are just a result of natural automatic objective processes.

In fact, humans may very well become extinct. It certainly appears that we are trying hard to destroy ourselves by ruining the biosphere that supports us.

So after humans dead and gone what happens then?

Does objective morality cease to exist?

Will there be any objective morality for whatever biological creatures might evolve to sentience next?

Yes. Wherever or whenever biological creatures evolve brains big enough to value well-being over suffering and survival over the opposite and start living in societies there will be acts that are objectively immoral because they threaten the well-being of the society.

Was it objectively immoral for the dinosaurs to have become extinct?

If those dinosaurs lived in societies and had evolved brains to value survival over the opposite yes then it would be objectively immoral for a dinosaur to consciously do something threatening the well-being of that society. You seem to be obsessed with the idea that to become extinct would be somehow objectively immoral. It isn't. Becoming extinct might be a consequence of acting immorally. What is objectively immoral is acting against the well-being and survival of the society.

Of course you can argue that scientifically speaking if all humans are killed off this can't be "Good" for the human species. Thus making this seem like a rock solid objective conclusion.

But it's still a relative conclusion. It would only be "not good" for the human species. Not necessarily objectively "not good" for the universe as a whole.

Now you got the point. I don't say that something would have to be objectively not good for the universe as a whole only objectively not good for the human society. The word objective still applies.

[Bust Nak]

So we say that helping is good and right and moral behavior and murdering each other is bad and wrong and immoral behavior.

Appealing to what we say sounds very subjective to me.

If you were of the subjective opinion that it would be good for a society if everybody murdered each other you would be objectively wrong.

Okay, but that's not the same thing as "if you were of the subjective opinion that it would be morally good if everybody murdered each other, you would be objectively wrong." That's what you need to demonstrate, if you want to declare the existence of objective morality.

[Artie]

So we say that helping is good and right and moral behavior and murdering each other is bad and wrong and immoral behavior.

Appealing to what we say sounds very subjective to me.

If you were of the subjective opinion that it would be good for a society if everybody murdered each other you would be objectively wrong.

Okay, but that's not the same thing as "if you were of the subjective opinion that it would be morally good if everybody murdered each other, you would be objectively wrong." That's what you need to demonstrate, if you want to declare the existence of objective morality.

Moral and good are synonyms. https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/moral
You can replace the word good with the word moral and write "if you were of the subjective opinion that it would be moral behavior if everybody murdered each other, you would be objectively wrong." but "morally good"? "Goodily good"?

[Bust Nak]

Moral and good are synonyms. https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/moral

Moral and good are synonyms, but beneficial and moral are not. "Leads to a prosperous and well-functioning society" sounds like you were talking about beneficial rather than moral upright, so it's good to check.

While we are here, by objectively wrong, do you mean objective immoral, or incorrect? Saying 1+1=4 is incorrect, but doesn't seem all that immoral.

You can replace the word good with the word moral and write "if you were of the subjective opinion that it would be moral behavior if everybody murdered each other, you would be objectively wrong."

Okay, and this needs to be proven, could you fill in the gap for me:

1) murdering each other leads to a dysfunctional society.
2) behavior that leads to a dysfunctional society is said by us to be immoral.
3) Andy holds the subjective opinion that murdering each other is not immoral.

…

n) Andy is objectively wrong.