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.

[Bust Nak]

We have different ideas about what it means to act as though one's personal taste is one opinion among other opinions. Concerning the shape of the earth, I act as though my peronsal "taste" on the matter is a truth among other false opinions. Concerning mathematical truths like 2+2=4, I act as though my personal "taste" on the matter is a truth among other false opinions.

Right, and that's how one would act when dealing with objective matter, which is decidedly different from how I act when dealing with ethics, where I treat my opinion as one among many.

Concerning ethics, you seem to me to act as though your personal taste is one truth among other false opinions.

I know, but your reasoning for thinking that isn't all that clear.

To me, acting as though your personal taste is one opinion among other opinions would mean not acting as though your opinion is true for everyone.

Right, and that's not how I act. My opinion is not true for everyone.

It would be like believing that multiple strategies will work for a specific team...

There might be multiple strategies that works, and even if that's the case, there would still be a best strategy, right? And there are still many strategies that are simply bad idea for any team, correct? So how are you going from my opinion for the best strategy is one of many, to accepting that any old strategy people could come up with, would work as good as mine?

Try filling in the gap here:
1) my opinion is the best one.
…
n) therefore my opinion is true for everyone.

That's what you are suggesting isn't it? You see me acting as if my opinion is the best (which is an accurate observation, I do treat mine as the best) i.e. simple subjectivism, and then somehow concluded that I am acting as if my opinion is true for everyone, a la the shape of the earth.

choosing one to go with, but not thinking the other strategies are bad strategies.

But that's exactly how people think all the time when it comes to team strategy, they choose one to go with and think other other strategies are worse. Are you suggesting that implies what is a good strategy is not a matter of opinion?

[The Tanager]

I know, but your reasoning for thinking that isn't all that clear.

It seems clear to me in how I've been responding to you. We stumble upon a new way to put our thoughts to each other every now and then and, like I said, I'll continue trying as long as you want to keep trying and that I can offer a new way to phrase it.

Right, and that's not how I act. My opinion is not true for everyone.

What keeps giving me pause is when you say that you think other people shouldn't abuse children either. Are you saying (1) the world would be a better place if other people didn't abuse children or simply that (2) you'd be personally happier?

[Bust Nak]

We stumble upon a new way to put our thoughts to each other every now and then and, like I said, I'll continue trying as long as you want to keep trying and that I can offer a new way to phrase it.

You can try filling in that syllogism like I asked:

1) my opinion is the best one.
…
n) therefore my opinion is true for everyone.

What keeps giving me pause is when you say that you think other people shouldn't abuse children either. Are you saying (1) the world would be a better place if other people didn't abuse children or simply that (2) you'd be personally happier?

Neither. When I say that other people shouldn't abuse children, I am saying I disapprove of child abuse, in other words, I don't want anyone to abuse children.

Does it give you pause about whether people recognise that there are many opinion when it comes to strategy when you hear people discuss football tactics?

[The Tanager]

You can try filling in that syllogism like I asked:

1) my opinion is the best one.
…
n) therefore my opinion is true for everyone.

I didn't respond to that because I tried to further clarify what you were saying, with the following:

What keeps giving me pause is when you say that you think other people shouldn't abuse children either. Are you saying (1) the world would be a better place if other people didn't abuse children or simply that (2) you'd be personally happier?

Neither. When I say that other people shouldn't abuse children, I am saying I disapprove of child abuse, in other words, I don't want anyone to abuse children.

If that is all you are saying, then how is that not simple subjectivism?

[wiploc]

If that is all you are saying, then how is that not simple subjectivism?

Phrased that way, he's not making any kind of a moral claim.

[Bust Nak]

I didn't respond to that because I tried to further clarify what you were saying, with the following

Again, think food taste, what do you think someone is saying, when you hear them say "this pizza is the best?"

Maybe try filing in this syllogism:

1) this pizza is the best.
…
n) therefore my opinion is true for everyone.

If that is all you are saying, then how is that not simple subjectivism?

It's not simple subjectivism because I am equating my opinion with morality. In contrast with how we don't equate our opinion of what 2+2 is, with the actual sum of 2 and 2.

If that is all you are saying, then how is that not simple subjectivism?

Phrased that way, he's not making any kind of a moral claim.

Am I not? Are you assuming morality goes beyond personal approval and disapproval?

[wiploc]

wiploc wrote:

Phrased that way, he's not making any kind of a moral claim.

Bust Nak wrote:

Am I not? Are you assuming morality goes beyond personal approval and disapproval?

Morality is about what we ought to do. There's no way to get from your preference to my obligation.

[Bust Nak]

Morality is about what we ought to do. There's no way to get from your preference to my obligation.

There is, if morality is subjective: You are obliged to do what I want you to do, simply because I want you to.

[wiploc]

Morality is about what we ought to do. There's no way to get from your preference to my obligation.

There is, if morality is subjective: You are obliged to do what I want you to do, simply because I want you to.

Unless I don't want to, right? In which case I am obliged not to do what you want.

Did I get that right?

[Bust Nak]

Unless I don't want to, right? In which case I am obliged not to do what you want.

Did I get that right?

No, you did not. There is no unless you don't want to in.

As I keep telling The Tanager, think food taste. Would it make any sense for someone to say, "I love this pizza, unless you don't like it?" No, because whether you like it or not, it would have no bearing on how much I love the taste of this pizza.