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.

[The Tanager]

Natural to whom? Uncontroversial to whom? To moral objectivists only. You say this is natural so I guess you are taking it as an axiom as opposed to a deductive argument? You are reconfirming my earlier charge: you've spent your entire life as an moral objectivist surrounded by other moral objectivists, that's made it all but impossible to understand a system starting from the opposite premise. "If moral is subjective then you cannot criticize other people's action" is an extreme common misconception coming from moral objectivists.

It's natural to you in everything except for ethics. So, even for a subjectivist like you ethics is unique from other personal tastes.

Asked answered: there is no account for taste; beauty is in the eye of the beholder;
because that's how I roll; I am biologically wired that way. Why are you okay with classical music but not okay with country music? People have different tastes. That's simple subjectivism.

There is an account for taste. What is it about classical music that you like and rap music that you don't like? What is it about the sound or lyrics or emotions they evoke, etc.?

[Bust Nak]

It's natural to you in everything except for ethics.

Way to go claiming to know more about me than I do.

There is an account for taste. What is it about classical music that you like and rap music that you don't like? What is it about the sound or lyrics or emotions they evoke, etc.?

Then try accounting for why you don't like country music.

[The Tanager]

Way to go claiming to know more about me than I do.

Not in the least. I based that on what you have been saying in this thread. You have directly and continually shared that you like allowing freedom to other people to indulge their personal likes in the various aesthetic examples, but that you dislike allowing freedom to other people to indulge their personal likes in ethical examples.

Then try accounting for why you don't like country music.

Noting that we are talking generally here, I don't like the 'twang' in many voices. I don't like the rhythm or pace in most country songs. They don't sound as smooth to me. The lyrics are not poetic enough for my liking.

[Bust Nak]

Not in the least. I based that on what you have been saying in this thread. You have directly and continually shared that you like allowing freedom to other people to indulge their personal likes in the various aesthetic examples, but that you dislike allowing freedom to other people to indulge their personal likes in ethical examples.

Sure but that's not the contentious part. What you pointed out here doesn't imply "if there is no right answer, it is natural for me to be okay with people not having one particular answer or response." You don't get to decide what is and isn't natural for me.

Noting that we are talking generally here, I don't like the 'twang' in many voices. I don't like the rhythm or pace in most country songs. They don't sound as smooth to me. The lyrics are not poetic enough for my liking.

Well there you go, you are accounting for you taste by appealing to your taste.

[The Tanager]

Sure but that's not the contentious part. What you pointed out here doesn't imply "if there is no right answer, it is natural for me to be okay with people not having one particular answer or response." You don't get to decide what is and isn't natural for me.

I am not sure what you are contending. When there is no "right answer" in aesthetics, you are naturally okay with people following through with their answer. When there is no "right answer" in ethics, you are not naturally okay with people following through with their answer (unless it matches your answer). I am not deciding this; you have shared this. Perhaps we are using some specific word in that phrasing differently?

Well there you go, you are accounting for you taste by appealing to your taste.

Perhaps we are using "accounting" differently here? My accounting tells us something about me and about the music. When you say that you like freedom of personal expression in aesthetics but not ethics this points to a difference you see between aesthetics and ethics.

That difference is different then the type of difference between liking classical and disliking rap music. Different musical styles have different rhythyms, sounds, etc. That you like certain rhythyms, sounds, etc. accounts for why you like one musical style, but not another. But the difference in aesthetics vs. ethics concerns the same thing: freedom of personal expression. You react differently to the same feature existing in both.

[Bust Nak]

I am not sure what you are contending. When there is no "right answer" in aesthetics, you are naturally okay with people following through with their answer.

You are doing it again! That's exactly what I am contesting. You made that up. When there is no "right answer," I am not naturally okay with people following through with their answer, regardless of the topic. I am okay with people following through with their answer where theirs match mine, I am not okay with people following through with their answer where theirs don't, regardless of the topic.

Perhaps we are using "accounting" differently here? My accounting tells us something about me and about the music.

Sure, it tells me that you like the music you like, because you just like those music. How is that accounting your music taste anymore than how I account for my taste with "that's just how I roll" or "beauty is in the eye of the beholder?"

When you say that you like freedom of personal expression in aesthetics but not ethics this points to a difference you see between aesthetics and ethics.

And when you say that you like classical music but not country music this points to a difference you see between classical and country. This is a non-issue.

How is this difference a different type of difference between liking classical and disliking country? Different actions and thoughts have different outcome, characteristic etc. That I like certain way of interaction between people accounts for why I like people act in one way, but not another. The different in classical music vs. rap concerns the same thing: sounds. I react differently to the same feature existing in both. Big whoop.

Notice how I just took what you said and swap music and ethics around without problems? They are treated the same way.

[The Tanager]

I am not sure what you are contending. When there is no "right answer" in aesthetics, you are naturally okay with people following through with their answer.

You are doing it again! That's exactly what I am contesting. You made that up. When there is no "right answer," I am not naturally okay with people following through with their answer, regardless of the topic. I am okay with people following through with their answer where theirs match mine, I am not okay with people following through with their answer where theirs don't, regardless of the topic.

Are we understanding "right answer" the same? By "right answer" I mean that there is no taste all people should have in music. You are naturally okay with people acting on their different music tastes, aren't you? Haven't you been claiming that over and over? That is how I'm using being "okay with people following through with their answer." But you have said you are not naturally okay with people acting on their different ethical tastes, unless they agree with you.

Perhaps we are using "accounting" differently here? My accounting tells us something about me and about the music.

Sure, it tells me that you like the music you like, because you just like those music. How is that accounting your music taste anymore than how I account for my taste with "that's just how I roll" or "beauty is in the eye of the beholder?"

It accounts for why I like that particular music. It's more specific than "that's just how I roll".

How is this difference a different type of difference between liking classical and disliking country? Different actions and thoughts have different outcome, characteristic etc. That I like certain way of interaction between people accounts for why I like people act in one way, but not another. The different in classical music vs. rap concerns the same thing: sounds. I react differently to the same feature existing in both. Big whoop.

Classical music and rap music both have sounds but they don't have the same sounds, that is why you react differently to them. If they had the exact same sounds, you'd react in the same way to both of them (or dislike one for some other reason).

Aesthetics and ethics both have personal expression of things you don't personally like. That's analogical to the same sounds, not just sounds as a general thing. Yet, you react differently to "personal expressions of things you don't personally like" when talking about aesthetic issues and ethical issues.

[Trismegistus]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]
The only time we can infer that a subjective thought is dead is when the objective world stops supporting the subjective through empirical science.You are correct is assuming that philosophy is dead in the way we cant argue a new leg for someone without one . Yet the subjective has created objective models that science cant explain or has come to find as true .
Philosophy is a health club with set exercises machines that can and do create real tangible results for all .
The world is best understood from the subjective! Almost all priori breakthroughs have been done by subjective thought and later proved by objective science .
Ego has the most damaging effect on man . If I was to call a child on the other side of the world and tell them it was light out they would be very confused. The child on the other side of the world cannot imagine it being light when it is clearly dark by them .
Another example of child like ego is the fact that you can beat a young child at checkers with the same move over and over ! Why is that ? The childs ego can only imagine his/hers side of the board and not yours !
Ego as an adult wants to fuel the foreign installation of man and reject the subjective, because our self importance cant reside in the subjective.
The reason philosophy and religion are dead is the sane reason that children cant see your side of the checker board ! Ego fuels religion and philosophy.
Wanting to be correct ,smarter , true and vindicated through either ones God or Philosophy has created self importance.
Self importance hinders the subjective. Einstein thought little of himself and poured what thought he did have into the subjective. When the theory of relativity feel into Einsteins mind he did not quite grasp it ! Bohr is the one who really fleshed out the theory objectively.
From philosophy, art , music and day dreaming comes reality !

No empirical theory ever described why we create music or paint . Philosophy I agree is not the answer , but rather it creates the subjective question which builds what all objective reality sits on .
Philosophy is dead , because of ego . If one has no ego then the boundless universe of thought becomes more real than the one we use as a benchmark.
Philosophy as is religion the results of ego !

Those with the greatest philosophy or religion have zero to say or care to tell anyone else their thought ! Reason being is , because they fight their self importance.

[Bust Nak]

Are we understanding "right answer" the same? By "right answer" I mean that there is no taste all people should have in music.

Should? Should the answer of 2+2 be 4? Should the Earth be a ball? Where there is a right answer then "should" doesn't even come into the picture.

You are naturally okay with people acting on their different music tastes, aren't you? Haven't you been claiming that over and over?

Yes, but you tagged on the spurious reasoning of "when there is no right answer."

It accounts for why I like that particular music. It's more specific than "that's just how I roll".

So why don't you like the 'twang' in many voices, why don't you like the rhythm or pace in most country songs? I can expand on more detail on why child abuse along the lines of the feelings it generates in me, but it's still just my preference. Being more or less specific isn't the issue here, the issue is you are appeal to your own taste, in order to justify your own taste.

Classical music and rap music both have sounds but they don't have the same sounds, that is why you react differently to them.

And making music and abusing children both are expression of people's taste but they are not the same expression of people's taste, that's why I react differently to them.

Aesthetics and ethics both have personal expression of things you don't personally like, and personal expression of things I am personally fine with. Where they are different (like vs dislike) I act differently, where they are the same (like and like, or dislike and dislike) I act in the same way.

There is the 1:1 parallel between aesthetic and ethical again.

[The Tanager]

Should? Should the answer of 2+2 be 4? Should the Earth be a ball? Where there is a right answer then "should" doesn't even come into the picture.

Yes, you should say 4 is the answer of 2+2. You should not answer with 5.

So why don't you like the 'twang' in many voices, why don't you like the rhythm or pace in most country songs? I can expand on more detail on why child abuse along the lines of the feelings it generates in me, but it's still just my preference. Being more or less specific isn't the issue here, the issue is you are appeal to your own taste, in order to justify your own taste.

The point is that I don't think you are going deep enough in your description to get at the difference I'm talking about regarding your different reactions to personal expressions. You are stopping at a more general similarity.

Aesthetics and ethics both have personal expression of things you don't personally like, and personal expression of things I am personally fine with. Where they are different (like vs dislike) I act differently, where they are the same (like and like, or dislike and dislike) I act in the same way.

There is the 1:1 parallel between aesthetic and ethical again.

That is the surface description I'm talking about. To get at my point, you've got to go deeper. Whether you share the aesthetic like or dislike, you like personal expression in aesthetics. In ethics, you don't like personal expression unless it agrees with your personal like. That's not 1:1 parallel.