Subjective Morality

Post by **The Tanager** » Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:57 pm

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.

Divine Insight wrote: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 · Post by **Artie** » Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:05 am

Bust Nak wrote: [Replying to post 239 by Artie]
I've already made my critique of that piece in the other thread, so I won't repeat them here.

I have to ask though, in what way does that article answer my question? At a glace it appears to be a red herring: It had nothing to do with Euthyphro's dilemma, nor the second part re: whether consistency being consistent with moral subjectivism.

You were saying that you were a subjectivist through and through. Just to illustrate what that actually might mean I just presented the viewpoints of another person also a subjectivist through and through.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:24 am

[Replying to post 241 by Artie]

Well he has some great points, we should all be asking ourselves why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than a pig? Is my life more to me than a hog's life to a hog? Why should a person be willing to sacrifice pleasure more for the one than the other? These are great questions for those who us who aren't willing declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as moral or immoral.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:20 pm

Bust Nak wrote:[Replying to post 241 by Artie]Well he has some great points, we should all be asking ourselves why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than a pig? Is my life more to me than a hog's life to a hog? Why should a person be willing to sacrifice pleasure more for the one than the other? These are great questions for those who us who aren't willing declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as moral or immoral.

I was just considering how it would be like to live in a society populated only by people like Ted Bundy... I don't think it's a question of God or nature marking some pleasures as moral or immoral, after a while there just wouldn't be anybody left alive... except one...

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:36 pm

Artie wrote: I was just considering how it would be like to live in a society populated only by people like Ted Bundy...

Like him in which aspects though? Society would be fine if everyone was like him in the sense he was a moral subjectivist; society would be great if everyone was like him in the sense he was smart and highly educated. On the other hand, society would break down if everyone was like him in the sense he was a sadistic sociopath.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:01 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
Artie wrote:I was just considering how it would be like to live in a society populated only by people like Ted Bundy...
Like him in which aspects though? Society would be fine if everyone was like him in the sense he was a moral subjectivist

I don't think society would be fine if everybody were moral subjectivists... case in point... Ted Bundy...

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Thu Feb 06, 2020 1:30 pm

Artie wrote: I don't think society would be fine if everybody were moral subjectivists... case in point... Ted Bundy...

Why this and not "I don't think society would be fine if everybody were smart and well educated... case in point... Ted Bundy...?" It's not like moral subjectivism contributed any more to his murder spree than his intelligence.

Post by **The Tanager** » Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:19 pm

[Replying to post 237 by Artie]

I'll just be repeating my points that I don't think you've adequately answered. You don't think I've adequately answered your points. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and listening to mine.

Post by **The Tanager** » Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:20 pm

Bust Nak wrote:They seemed to be talking about morality that is immutable which is absolute morality, not the same thing as moral objectivism.

Could you define "absolute morality" and "moral objectivism" more clearly as you are using them to make sure we are on the same page with the terms?

Bust Nak wrote:
Now, I think Socrates is quite right that Euthyphro's thinking, if true, results in human morality being subjective (not because it comes from a god but that he ties it to multiple gods who disagree) but Euthyphro is under the impression that his view results in a human morality that is objectively grounded.
Which bit exactly is giving you that impression? Merely insisting that human be consistent implies he believe morality is objectively grounded? I think people ought to be consistent too, yet I am a subjectivist through and through.

Which impression? That Euthyphro thinks his ethical theory is objective or that Euthyphro's ethical theory is actually subjective?

Bust Nak wrote:
Not wanting to punish country musicians and their fans seems to be talking about my taste when it comes to other people's actions.
Exactly my point. They are all matters of taste thus belong in the same category of taste, even as they are dealing with different are - people's actions, food taste, music taste, visual aesthetics and so on.

We have personal tastes concerning music, food, visual aesthetics, and even moral issues. But we also have reactions to other people acting on their personal tastes. I'm talking about a categorical distinction on this second feature. We react differently to other people acting on their personal moral tastes when they conflict with ours (at least on things like abusing children) than we react to other people acting on their personal musical tastes when they conflict with ours.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:33 am

The Tanager wrote:Could you define "absolute morality" and "moral objectivism" more clearly as you are using them to make sure we are on the same page with the terms?

Absolute morality runs along the lines of, lying is always wrong, if Nazis are knocking on your door asking if you are hiding Jews, you would tell him where they are hiding.

Objective morality says moral statements are propositions that describes the features of the world, independent from perspective or perception.

Which impression? That Euthyphro thinks his ethical theory is objective or that Euthyphro's ethical theory is actually subjective?

The first one, that Euthyphro thinks his ethical theory is objective.

We have personal tastes concerning music, food, visual aesthetics, and even moral issues. But we also have reactions to other people acting on their personal tastes. I'm talking about a categorical distinction on this second feature. We react differently to other people acting on their personal moral tastes when they conflict with ours (at least on things like abusing children) than we react to other people acting on their personal musical tastes when they conflict with ours.

That's no more significant than how I react different to classical music than how I react to rap music. In one instance I am fine with a piece of music, in another I am not fine with a piece of music. Just as in one instance I am fine with someone's taste, in another I am not fine someone tastes.

Post by **The Tanager** » Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:48 am

Bust Nak wrote:Absolute morality runs along the lines of, lying is always wrong, if Nazis are knocking on your door asking if you are hiding Jews, you would tell him where they are hiding.

Objective morality says moral statements are propositions that describes the features of the world, independent from perspective or perception.

It seems to me that Euthyphro is saying that prosecuting someone for murder is pious, independent from perspective or perception. Even if you like the murderer, even if you are related to the murderer, if you don't want to...for whatever reason... you should still prosecute them. He does not seem to be making a statement that prosecuting someone (for any reason) is always correct, like with lying (for any reason) always being wrong. If this is correct, then Euthyphro thinks his ethical theory is objective, regardless of whether he is also an absolutist.

Bust Nak wrote:That's no more significant than how I react different to classical music than how I react to rap music. In one instance I am fine with a piece of music, in another I am not fine with a piece of music. Just as in one instance I am fine with someone's taste, in another I am not fine someone tastes.

But how do you react to people whose music taste is something you are not fine with?