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.

[Artie]

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.

1) Murdering each other leads to a dysfunctional society and if everybody murdered each other it leads to no society at all.
2) Behavior that leads to a dysfunctional society is said by us to be immoral. Immoral or bad or wrong are just words we use for behavior that leads to a dysfunctional society.
3) Andy holds the subjective opinion that murdering each other is not immoral.
n) Andy is objectively wrong because the words immoral or bad or wrong are words we use to describe behavior that leads to a dysfunctional society and murdering each other would be detrimental to the society.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 21 by Artie]

Okay, that looks valid, in which case I challenge the truth of premise 2. This bit in particular: "Immoral or bad or wrong are just words we use for behavior that leads to a dysfunctional society." I certainly do not use these words synonymously with behavior that leads to a dysfunctional society.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 21 by Artie]

Okay, that looks valid, in which case I challenge the truth of premise 2. This bit in particular: "Immoral or bad or wrong are just words we use for behavior that leads to a dysfunctional society." I certainly do not use these words synonymously with behavior that leads to a dysfunctional society.

You don't use the words immoral or bad or wrong to describe behavior that is detrimental to society? Do you use them to describe behavior that is beneficial for society then? Murder isn't immoral or bad or wrong?

[Bust Nak]

You don't use the words immoral or bad or wrong to describe behavior that is detrimental to society? Do you use them to describe behavior that is beneficial for society then? Murder isn't immoral or bad or wrong?

I certainly do use those words to describe behavior that is detrimental to society such as murder, but I don't treat them as synonymous. See this analogy: while "fast" is certainly a word we use to describe expensive cars, it is not the case that "fast" is just a word we use for cars that are expensive, for that would miss the point that "fast" is about their speed and not their cost.

[Divine Insight]

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.

What kind of an argument is this?

Are you attempting to suggest that since our brains have evolved via an objective process that every thought we have must then reflect an objective truth?

I don't think that argument is going to hold water.

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.

Your still making the same mistake. Your wrongfully assuming that since humans evolved by a natural objective process that this somehow means that their continued survival must also be objective important.

But we already know this isn't true as many naturally evolved lifeforms have already gone extinct. So it's not a property of objective reality that highly evolved lifeforms represent anything of importance.

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.

Can you please demonstrate how your statement highlighted in bold red above should be seen as anything other than your own personal subjective opinion?

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.

But even then you would have a hard time getting full consensus on your opinion here. Sure, you'd no doubt get a high degree of subjective consensus from most humans. However, there will always be those humans who hold that the end of the human race will result in the end of human suffering, and therefore, in their subjective opinion the end of the human race will indeed be a "Good Thing".

Who's to say who's subjective opinion should represent objective reality?

Is objective reality a democracy? Do humans get to vote to see which of their subjective opinions should be held up as being objective?

I don't see where your arguments are well-thought-out. You appear to be thinking that since the vast majority of humans would most likely agree with your opinion that the end of humanity would be a "bad thing' somehow makes this an objectively "bad thing".

I don't think this argument would hold up in serious philosophical circles.

[Divine Insight]

You don't use the words immoral or bad or wrong to describe behavior that is detrimental to society? Do you use them to describe behavior that is beneficial for society then? Murder isn't immoral or bad or wrong?

I think you need to be careful here. Just because a secularist uses words like "moral or immoral" doesn't imply that they are speaking of any objective morality.

To the contrary, they could simply be voicing their opinion on what they feel society should consider to be right or wrong behaviors. They may even be using the terms to express what a society has already decided is right or wrong.

And keep in mind that different societies are going to have different opinions on what they consider to be right or wrong.

So there's definitely no objective morality to be found in societies.

[Divine Insight]

@Artie,

If nature herself has no problem killing humans (and we all know that she has no problem doing this), then how can it be argued that it's naturally objectively wrong to kill a human?

[Artie]

Your still making the same mistake. Your wrongfully assuming that since humans evolved by a natural objective process that this somehow means that their continued survival must also be objective important.

We evolved through a natural process that made us value well-being over suffering, survival over the opposite. So we call behavior that is beneficial to the survival of the society moral, good or right and behavior that is detrimental to the survival of the society immoral, bad or wrong. Some things are objectively good and some are objectively bad regardless of the subjective opinion of humans. Hence those things are objectively good or bad.

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.

Can you please demonstrate how your statement highlighted in bold red above should be seen as anything other than your own personal subjective opinion?

Because immoral is a synonym for bad and it is objectively bad for a society if people keep acting against the well-being and survival of the society...

Is objective reality a democracy? Do humans get to vote to see which of their subjective opinions should be held up as being objective?

No. Those questions were meant in jest right?

I don't see where your arguments are well-thought-out. You appear to be thinking that since the vast majority of humans would most likely agree with your opinion that the end of humanity would be a "bad thing' somehow makes this an objectively "bad thing".

And I have already explained that when we talk about something that is objectively immoral we are talking about something that is objectively detrimental to the well-being and survival of a society. Period. You are the one who seems to be obsessed with and keeps harping on about "the end of humanity". Could you please tell us where in my sentence "when we talk about something that is objectively immoral we are talking about something that is objectively detrimental to the well-being and survival of a society" I say anything about "the end of humanity" being objectively wrong?

[Artie]

You don't use the words immoral or bad or wrong to describe behavior that is detrimental to society? Do you use them to describe behavior that is beneficial for society then? Murder isn't immoral or bad or wrong?

I think you need to be careful here. Just because a secularist uses words like "moral or immoral" doesn't imply that they are speaking of any objective morality.

To the contrary, they could simply be voicing their opinion on what they feel society should consider to be right or wrong behaviors. They may even be using the terms to express what a society has already decided is right or wrong.

And keep in mind that different societies are going to have different opinions on what they consider to be right or wrong.

So there's definitely no objective morality to be found in societies.

Of course there is. Every time a moral person makes a moral decision he looks at the situation from an objective point of view and tries to do what is the most beneficial and/or least detrimental act for the society and the people in it regardless of his own subjective opinion. That is what objective means you see.

[Artie]

@Artie,

If nature herself has no problem killing humans (and we all know that she has no problem doing this), then how can it be argued that it's naturally objectively wrong to kill a human?

I have never said that it is objectively wrong in all situations to kill a human. Don't you ever get tired of misrepresenting me and putting words in my mouth? How about you stop arguing against your own straw men?