Subjective Morality

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Subjective Morality

Post #1

Post by 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.
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.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #751

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:00 pmBecause that's clearly me stating my own subjective opinion.
If you are just stating your opinion, then that is simple subjectivism. If you are addressing the issue objectivism addresses, then your opinion is that other people should act in accordance with your feeling, which is objectively true for everyone. What's weird is thinking everyone should act in accordance with one opinion among many on an issue one thinks opinions are all there is, i.e., objectively equal to each other.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:00 pmYes, we've been through this. Subjectivism is supposed to be trivial, just people stating what they like for arbitrary reasons that boils down to "that's how I roll."
I like X because of the taste buds I have in my mouth is not trivial. This gives us a non-arbitrary reason for why one likes X.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:00 pmNo, that's not it at all: "it is objectively moral when Bob does child abuse, but objectively immoral when Johnny does child abuse, these statements are objectively true" is an example of objectivism, yet different action should be taken depending on whether it's Bob or Johnny.
That is not objectivism. Objectivism is that the truth is mind-independent or person-independent. That who is being judged, their personal opinion on the matter, and the like is not taken into account because the truth comes from outside of them. The speed limit is 65 for both Bob and Johnny.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:00 pmThat implies that if everyone universally likes the same food, then some food is objectively tasty, even though we are talking about likes and dislikes. You still don't think that's weird?
It does not imply that. There is a difference between something being an objective feature of reality and that subjective truths just happen to all match up. If the Nazis had won WWII and taken over the world to the point where everyone believed as they did, that wouldn't make their morals objectively true.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:00 pm"I like ice-cream" and "ice-cream feels bad in my mouth" are different statements too, why would that mean "I like ice-cream" and "ice-cream feels good in my mouth" aren't synonymous.
In calling them 'different statements,' I'm referring to the concepts behind them. Therefore, they aren't synonymous simply by definition. Yes, we can say the same thing with different phrases. That's not what I'm talking about. It is a fact that objectifying women gives me physical pleasure. In spite of that, I still dislike it. In order for that to make sense they must be different concepts.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:00 pmHow about "I think some people should eat chocolate and some vanilla because of [regardless of whatever reason you want to put in here]" is the same thing as "this is how I feel about people eating chocolate and vanilla?"
If I'm understanding you correctly, then I would take those as saying the same thing, at least if the "this" in the latter statement also means [regardless of whatever reason you want to put in here].

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #752

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:49 pm If you are just stating your opinion, then that is simple subjectivism. If you are addressing the issue objectivism addresses, then your opinion is that other people should act in accordance with your feeling, which is objectively true for everyone.
So the same statement can be simple subjectivism and objectivism, which is mighty weird. More right at the bottom...
What's weird is thinking everyone should act in accordance with one opinion among many on an issue one thinks opinions are all there is, i.e., objectively equal to each other.
Why is that weird? You do the same with ice-cream, you have your one favorite, even when that opinion is objectively equal to another.
I like X because of the taste buds I have in my mouth is not trivial. This gives us a non-arbitrary reason for why one likes X.
I don't see how that is any less trivial than, this is how I roll. That wouldn't be arbitrary either by that reasoning.
That is not objectivism. Objectivism is that the truth is mind-independent or person-independent...
But my example is mind-independent. To borrow your example "the speed limit is 65 for Bob and 90 for Johnny." Their personal opinion on the matter is not taken into account because the truth comes from outside of them (it's written in black and white in their jurisdiction's law.) How is this not objectivism?
It does not imply that.
Why not? You said "subjectivity refers to the answer for a singular question being fluid, dependent upon different tastes or opinions." Where tastes and opinions do not differ, the answer for a singular question is not fluid.
In calling them 'different statements,' I'm referring to the concepts behind them. Therefore, they aren't synonymous simply by definition. Yes, we can say the same thing with different phrases. That's not what I'm talking about. It is a fact that objectifying women gives me physical pleasure. In spite of that, I still dislike it. In order for that to make sense they must be different concepts.
No so. They don't have to be different concepts. You like (positive physical pleasure) one aspect of objectifying women, you dislike (negative physical pleasure) another aspect of objectifying women. These two statements account for the same situation without appealing to different concepts of likes/dislike.
If I'm understanding you correctly, then I would take those as saying the same thing, at least if the "this" in the latter statement also means [regardless of whatever reason you want to put in here].
And that's not problematic for you? Looks like a self-contradiction to me. It doesn't address objectivism/subjectivism proper re: simple subjectivism AND it addresses objectivism/subjectivism re: people should eat what they like because of a subjective/objective fact.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #753

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:57 pmSo the same statement can be simple subjectivism and objectivism, which is mighty weird. More right at the bottom...
If you mean the same phrase can be used when meaning two different concepts, then that isn't weird. From the start you talked about how subjectivists mean something different than objectivists when using the exact same phrase.

If you mean the same concept can be both, then I've never said that.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:57 pm
What's weird is thinking everyone should act in accordance with one opinion among many on an issue one thinks opinions are all there is, i.e., objectively equal to each other.
Why is that weird? You do the same with ice-cream, you have your one favorite, even when that opinion is objectively equal to another.
I do not do that. When the question is what is my favorite flavor, there aren't competing opinions. I only have my one favorite. There are no other opinions on the matter of my favorite flavor.

When the question is how I feel about people eating their own favorite flavors, then I'm not thinking that everyone should act in accordance with one opinion. I think everyone should follow their own opinion, which results in many different people eating many different kinds of ice cream and me being okay with it all.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:57 pm
I like X because of the taste buds I have in my mouth is not trivial. This gives us a non-arbitrary reason for why one likes X.
I don't see how that is any less trivial than, this is how I roll. That wouldn't be arbitrary either by that reasoning.
I like X because that's how I roll is a non-answer. It's not giving any actual reason, it's just saying that's what I do. But the question is asking what reason does one have.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:57 pmBut my example is mind-independent. To borrow your example "the speed limit is 65 for Bob and 90 for Johnny." Their personal opinion on the matter is not taken into account because the truth comes from outside of them (it's written in black and white in their jurisdiction's law.) How is this not objectivism?
It's not person-independent. It's saying one's speed limit differs depending on who they are, not on some truth outside of themselves.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:57 pmWhy not? You said "subjectivity refers to the answer for a singular question being fluid, dependent upon different tastes or opinions." Where tastes and opinions do not differ, the answer for a singular question is not fluid.
There is the possibility that different tastes could exist and, if so, that would lead to different truths. That everyone's taste happens to be the same doesn't change that. As I said, if Nazi ideology overtook the world, that wouldn't make Nazi morals objectively true, even though everyone shared the same view.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:57 pmNo so. They don't have to be different concepts. You like (positive physical pleasure) one aspect of objectifying women, you dislike (negative physical pleasure) another aspect of objectifying women. These two statements account for the same situation without appealing to different concepts of likes/dislike.
The different "aspects of objectifying women" is the difference in the concepts.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:57 pm
How about "I think some people should eat chocolate and some vanilla because of [regardless of whatever reason you want to put in here]" is the same thing as "this is how I feel about people eating chocolate and vanilla?"
If I'm understanding you correctly, then I would take those as saying the same thing, at least if the "this" in the latter statement also means [regardless of whatever reason you want to put in here].
And that's not problematic for you? Looks like a self-contradiction to me. It doesn't address objectivism/subjectivism proper re: simple subjectivism AND it addresses objectivism/subjectivism re: people should eat what they like because of a subjective/objective fact.
What I understood you to have asked me was if "I think some people should do X because of Y" is the same thing as "Because of Y, I feel people should do X." Simple subjectivism looks at what opinions we have. Objectivism/subjectivism proper looks into what kinds of reasons we give for our opinions.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #754

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:02 pm If you mean the same concept can be both, then I've never said that.
Let me make my case that more explicit then:

You said "I feel people should do X because of Y" is simple subjectivism. You also said "I feel people should do X because of Y" where Y is "people's opinion" is subjectivism proper. That's not same phrase with two different meanings; that's the same meaning, both simple subjectivism and subjectivism proper.

You said "I feel people should do X because of Y" is simple subjectivism. You also said "I feel people should do X because of Y" where Y is "Bust Nak's opinion" is objectivism. That's not same phrase with two different meanings; that's the same meaning, both simple subjectivism and objectivism.
I do not do that. When the question is what is my favorite flavor, there aren't competing opinions. I only have my one favorite. There are no other opinions on the matter of my favorite flavor.
The same applies to what people should do though, why is it weird when I do it, but not weird when you do it? When the question is what is my favorite way to behave, there aren't competing opinions. I only have my one favorite. There are no other opinions on the matter of my favorite way to behave.
I like X because that's how I roll is a non-answer. It's not giving any actual reason, it's just saying that's what I do. But the question is asking what reason does one have.
In the exact same sense, "I like it because it feels good on my tongue" is a not giving any actual reason, it's just saying that's what your tongue does.
It's not person-independent. It's saying one's speed limit differs depending on who they are, not on some truth outside of themselves.
No, it's written in a book somewhere, that's a truth outside of themselves, and it's certainly mind-independent, whether you want to double down of person dependence or not.
There is the possibility that different tastes could exist and, if so, that would lead to different truths. That everyone's taste happens to be the same doesn't change that. As I said, if Nazi ideology overtook the world, that wouldn't make Nazi morals objectively true, even though everyone shared the same view.
Why do you think objective morality can't change?
The different "aspects of objectifying women" is the difference in the concepts.
That sounded very much like you accept my claim that the like and dislike are the same concept here.
What I understood you to have asked me was if "I think some people should do X because of Y" is the same thing as "Because of Y, I feel people should do X."
Yes, and as far as I can tell you accept that they are the same thing,
Simple subjectivism looks at what opinions we have. Objectivism/subjectivism proper looks into what kinds of reasons we give for our opinions.
Right, which means "because of Y, I feel people should do X" is both a look at what opinion I have, AND what kind of reason I give for our opinion, depending which part of the statement you want to focus on. (As opposed to a single statement with two meaning.)

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #755

Post by The Tanager »

I used a categorization that I was able to distinguish between the two with. I'm fine if other statements are used. Simple subjectivism is just sharing one's opinion. Objectivism/subjectivism proper involves categorizing what kind of opinion was just shared. What statements do you want to use to clearly show this distinction?
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 5:31 am
I do not do that. When the question is what is my favorite flavor, there aren't competing opinions. I only have my one favorite. There are no other opinions on the matter of my favorite flavor.
The same applies to what people should do though, why is it weird when I do it, but not weird when you do it? When the question is what is my favorite way to behave, there aren't competing opinions. I only have my one favorite. There are no other opinions on the matter of my favorite way to behave.
Assuming that you've been asked what your favorite way to behave in X is, clearly explained it, and assuming other people trust that you are being honest with them, there are not competing beliefs about what your favorite way to behave is. Your opinion on "the way to behave in X" is the only opinion that matters. That one opinion is all there is. That's not what we said subjectivism proper was earlier. Subjectivism proper is "opinion is all there is," or, in this context, "there are multiple opinions on the issue with no one opinion being more right than the others."

If your opinion on "what people should do in X" is one informed by the truth of subjectivism proper, then your own opinion would not be viewed as a better answer to that question than another person's opinion that disagrees.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 5:31 am
I like X because that's how I roll is a non-answer. It's not giving any actual reason, it's just saying that's what I do. But the question is asking what reason does one have.
In the exact same sense, "I like it because it feels good on my tongue" is a not giving any actual reason, it's just saying that's what your tongue does.
It's not the same. "I like chocolate." Why do you like chocolate?

Person A: "Because that's how I roll (i.e., I just do)."

Versus

Person B: "Because it feels good on my tongue," or "because of the taste buds I have," or "because I think chocolate is healthier than other ice creams," or "because that's what Bust Nak likes and I want to be like Bust Nak."

Person A is simply saying that he likes chocolate. Person B is sharing what he likes about chocolate, giving a reason for it being true for him that chocolate is liked rather than disliked.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 5:31 am
There is the possibility that different tastes could exist and, if so, that would lead to different truths. That everyone's taste happens to be the same doesn't change that. As I said, if Nazi ideology overtook the world, that wouldn't make Nazi morals objectively true, even though everyone shared the same view.
Why do you think objective morality can't change?
I didn't say objective morality couldn't change. I don't think human morality (the objective law, not human beliefs about morality) changes because I think it is ontologically grounded in God's nature, but I'm not claiming it's logically impossible for objective morality (considered in itself) to change. I'm saying whether something is an objective or subjective feature of reality is not decided by a survey.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 5:31 amThat sounded very much like you accept my claim that the like and dislike are the same concept here.
If you are talking about the concepts of 'like' and 'dislike,' then I agree. But I'm saying "I like the physical pleasure that comes with objectifying women" is different than "I dislike the act of objectifying women". My ultimate judgment of the act of objectifying women does not depend on how I physically feel from performing the act.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #756

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:47 pm I used a categorization that I was able to distinguish between the two with. I'm fine if other statements are used. Simple subjectivism is just sharing one's opinion. Objectivism/subjectivism proper involves categorizing what kind of opinion was just shared. What statements do you want to use to clearly show this distinction?
I don't understand what you are saying or asking here at all. What categories? What other statements? It sounded a bit like you are saying a simple subjectivism statement can be categorized into either objectivism or subjectivism proper. If so then doesn't that confirm my contention that one exact same phrase (as opposed to same phrase two meanings) can be both simple subjectivism and objectivism (or subjectivism proper) at the same time?
Assuming that you've been asked what your favorite way to behave in X is, clearly explained it, and assuming other people trust that you are being honest with them, there are not competing beliefs about what your favorite way to behave is. Your opinion on "the way to behave in X" is the only opinion that matters. That one opinion is all there is.
So you accept that my stance on how people ought to act, is much like yours on ice-cream? Does that mean you also accept that it is not weird?
That's not what we said subjectivism proper was earlier. Subjectivism proper is "opinion is all there is," or, in this context, "there are multiple opinions on the issue with no one opinion being more right than the others."

If your opinion on "what people should do in X" is one informed by the truth of subjectivism proper, then your own opinion would not be viewed as a better answer to that question than another person's opinion that disagrees.
That's fine. My "what people should do in X" is not informed by the truth of subjectivism proper, i.e. not informed by the fact that opinion is all there is.
It's not the same. "I like chocolate." Why do you like chocolate?

Person A: "Because that's how I roll (i.e., I just do)."

Versus

Person B: "Because it feels good on my tongue," or "because of the taste buds I have," or "because I think chocolate is healthier than other ice creams," or "because that's what Bust Nak likes and I want to be like Bust Nak."

Person A is simply saying that he likes chocolate. Person B is sharing what he likes about chocolate, giving a reason for it being true for him that chocolate is liked rather than disliked.
No, person A is sharing what he likes about chocolate, and giving a reason for it being true for him that chocolate is liked rather than disliked. The reason is, "it is how I roll," that it is true for him that chocolate is liked. Had "it is how I roll" been false, then he would dislike chocolate.
I didn't say objective morality couldn't change. I don't think human morality (the objective law, not human beliefs about morality) changes because I think it is ontologically grounded in God's nature, but I'm not claiming it's logically impossible for objective morality (considered in itself) to change. I'm saying whether something is an objective or subjective feature of reality is not decided by a survey.
If you accept that then what's stopping "it is moral when Bob does child abuse, but immoral when Johnny does child abuse" from being objectivism, given the premise that the truth of these two clauses are not decided by a survey?
If you are talking about the concepts of 'like' and 'dislike,' then I agree. But I'm saying "I like the physical pleasure that comes with objectifying women" is different than "I dislike the act of objectifying women". My ultimate judgment of the act of objectifying women does not depend on how I physically feel from performing the act.
It's different because here you are talking about two different concepts of "objectifying women" (or two aspects of objectifying women as I called it) though. Let call these two concepts "gratification" and "disrespect."

Your ultimate judgment of the act of objectifying women (gratification) depends on how you physically feel from objectifying women (gratification.) Yay.

Your ultimate judgment of the act of objectifying women (disrespect) depends on how you physically feel from objectifying women (disrespect.) Yuck.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #757

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:58 amI don't understand what you are saying or asking here at all. What categories? What other statements? It sounded a bit like you are saying a simple subjectivism statement can be categorized into either objectivism or subjectivism proper. If so then doesn't that confirm my contention that one exact same phrase (as opposed to same phrase two meanings) can be both simple subjectivism and objectivism (or subjectivism proper) at the same time?
I don't understand what "same phrase (as opposed to same phrase two meanings)" means. (a) One phrase, one meaning?, (b) one phrase and ignoring how many meanings are associated with it, (c) something else?
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:58 am
Assuming that you've been asked what your favorite way to behave in X is, clearly explained it, and assuming other people trust that you are being honest with them, there are not competing beliefs about what your favorite way to behave is. Your opinion on "the way to behave in X" is the only opinion that matters. That one opinion is all there is.
So you accept that my stance on how people ought to act, is much like yours on ice-cream? Does that mean you also accept that it is not weird?
I don't accept our stances to be the same. Bust Nak's opinion that "Bust Nak's opinion is that child abuse is wrong" is like The Tanager's opinion that "The Tanager's opinion is that chocolate ice cream tastes the best to him." However:

Bust Nak's opinion that "child abuse is wrong" does not seem to be like The Tanager's opinion that "chocolate ice cream is the best".

Why not? The Tanager believes that ice cream tastes are a subjective feature of reality so that he judges himself right in eating chocolate (because chocolate is best to The Tanager...the subject The Tanager is judging) and Johnny right in eating pistachio (because pistachio is best to Johnny...the subject The Tanager is now judging).

It seems to me that Bust Nak judges himself right in not abusing a child (because not abusing a child is best to Bust Nak...the one who is doing the judging) and Johnny wrong in abusing a child (because not abusing a child is best to Bust Nak...the one who is doing the judging).

Notice the triviality here that is not present in the prior paragraph. Bust Nak judges based on what he himself judges to be true. Of course you do. You can't not (sorry grammar teachers) judge how you judge. I don't think it's weird that you judge everyone by your judgment. I don't think it's weird (although I still think it flawed) that you judge everyone by how an action makes you feel emotionally. I think it's weird that you do this and claim to believe morality is a subjective feature of reality.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:58 amThat's fine. My "what people should do in X" is not informed by the truth of subjectivism proper, i.e. not informed by the fact that opinion is all there is.
Then you aren't a subjectivist proper about morality. You are either an objectivist or are simply sharing your opinion and not explaining what kind of opinion you are sharing.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:58 am
It's not the same. "I like chocolate." Why do you like chocolate?...
No, person A is sharing what he likes about chocolate, and giving a reason for it being true for him that chocolate is liked rather than disliked. The reason is, "it is how I roll," that it is true for him that chocolate is liked. Had "it is how I roll" been false, then he would dislike chocolate.
What does "it is how I roll" mean? What is a synonym of that? One of the options I mentioned about why one might like chocolate? Something else?
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:58 amIf you accept that then what's stopping "it is moral when Bob does child abuse, but immoral when Johnny does child abuse" from being objectivism, given the premise that the truth of these two clauses are not decided by a survey?
Yes, my offered definition was not matching my belief on what objectivism is. Thank you for helping me see that. This kind of statement could be either objectivism or subjectivism.
Bust Nak wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:58 amIt's different because here you are talking about two different concepts of "objectifying women" (or two aspects of objectifying women as I called it) though. Let call these two concepts "gratification" and "disrespect."

Your ultimate judgment of the act of objectifying women (gratification) depends on how you physically feel from objectifying women (gratification.) Yay.

Your ultimate judgment of the act of objectifying women (disrespect) depends on how you physically feel from objectifying women (disrespect.) Yuck.
This categorization makes it impossible to disagree with you. "I feel..." is synonymous with "I judge...". That's what makes this categorization trivially true and useless for distinguishing different kinds of opinions.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #758

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 5:37 pm I don't understand what "same phrase (as opposed to same phrase two meanings)" means. (a) One phrase, one meaning?, (b) one phrase and ignoring how many meanings are associated with it, (c) something else?
Either a) or b) I am only interested in the one meaning, one concept, not how it is phrased. Seems like a trivial contradiction if one meaning can be simple subjectivism and objectivism (or subjectivism proper) at the same time.
The Tanager believes that ice cream tastes are a subjective feature of reality so that he judges himself right in eating chocolate (because chocolate is best to The Tanager...the subject The Tanager is judging) and Johnny right in eating pistachio (because pistachio is best to Johnny...the subject The Tanager is now judging).
But you are judging different things here, in the former you are judging ice-cream, in the latter you are judging Johnny's action. Where the things being judged is the same, you get the follwoing.

The Tanager judges himself right in eating chocolate (because chocolate is best to The Tanager...the subject The Tanager is judging) is same as Bust Nak judges himself right in not abusing children (because not abusing children is best to Bust Nak...the subject Bust Nak is judging.)

The Tanager judges Johnny right in eating pistachio (because Johnny eating pistachio is best to The Tanager...the subject The Tanager is judging) is same as Bust Nak judges Johnny wrong in abusing children (because Johnny not abusing children is best to Bust Nak...the subject Bust Nak is judging.)
Notice the triviality here that is not present in the prior paragraph. Bust Nak judges based on what he himself judges to be true. Of course you do. You can't not (sorry grammar teachers) judge how you judge. I don't think it's weird that you judge everyone by your judgment. I don't think it's weird (although I still think it flawed) that you judge everyone by how an action makes you feel emotionally. I think it's weird that you do this and claim to believe morality is a subjective feature of reality.
If it is not weird to judge ice-cream based on how I feel emotionally while believing taste is a subjective feature of reality, why would it be any more weirder to judge how others act, based on how I feel emotionally while believing taste is a subjective feature of reality?
Then you aren't a subjectivist proper about morality. You are either an objectivist or are simply sharing your opinion and not explaining what kind of opinion you are sharing.
Or all three at the same time, where a) judging by one's own emotion is classed as objectivism, b) offering an opinion makes me a simple subjectivist and c) believe that morality is a subjective feature of reality makes me a subjectivist proper.
What does "it is how I roll" mean? What is a synonym of that? One of the options I mentioned about why one might like chocolate? Something else?
It's how I am made, I was born like that. Just more generalised form of I have certain taste buds on my tongue.
This categorization makes it impossible to disagree with you. "I feel..." is synonymous with "I judge...". That's what makes this categorization trivially true and useless for distinguishing different kinds of opinions.
Is it all that useful to distinguish between different kinds of opinion? The kind of things that would be useful to distinguish would be "the Earth is a globe" vs "ice-cream is nice" but we typically just treat the former as a fact and ignore the opinion aspect of that claim.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 3207
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #759

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:40 am
You said "I feel people should do X because of Y" is simple subjectivism. You also said "I feel people should do X because of Y" where Y is "people's opinion" is subjectivism proper. That's not same phrase with two different meanings; that's the same meaning, both simple subjectivism and subjectivism proper.
I don't understand what "same phrase (as opposed to same phrase two meanings)" means. (a) One phrase, one meaning?, (b) one phrase and ignoring how many meanings are associated with it, (c) something else?
Either a) or b) I am only interested in the one meaning, one concept, not how it is phrased. Seems like a trivial contradiction if one meaning can be simple subjectivism and objectivism (or subjectivism proper) at the same time.
If I'm understanding your confusion correctly, then here's a try at straightening what I meant out. I believe simple subjectivism and subjectivism proper (or objectivism) can be taken as focusing on different parts of the same phrase. Simple subjectivism simply shares what the opinion is without analyzing what kind of reason is given for the opinion being held. Objectivism/Subjectivism Proper addresses what kind of reason Y is.

So, "I feel people should do X because of Y," where Y is "people's opinion" is subjectivism proper because the focus is now on what kind of reason Y is that leads to the opinion one has, Y being a subjective fact of reality. Does that help at all?
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:40 amThe Tanager judges Johnny right in eating pistachio (because Johnny eating pistachio is best to The Tanager...the subject The Tanager is judging) is same as Bust Nak judges Johnny wrong in abusing children (because Johnny not abusing children is best to Bust Nak[/b]...the subject Bust Nak is judging.)
So, above, we have that The Tanager [Person A] judges X [Johnny is right to eat pistachio] is best because of Y [The Tanager judges Johnny eating pistachio is best]. So, Person A judges that X is best because Person A judges that X is best. That's just saying my opinion is my opinion. It's not addressing objectivism/subjectivism proper.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:40 am
I don't think it's weird that you judge everyone by your judgment. I don't think it's weird (although I still think it flawed) that you judge everyone by how an action makes you feel emotionally. I think it's weird that you do this and claim to believe morality is a subjective feature of reality.
If it is not weird to judge ice-cream based on how I feel emotionally while believing taste is a subjective feature of reality, why would it be any more weirder to judge how others act, based on how I feel emotionally while believing taste is a subjective feature of reality?
I didn't say it's weird to judge in this way. I said it's weird to judge in this way and consider it subjectivism proper. The reason behind believing X in both of these cases has nothing to do with taste being a subjective feature of reality. You judge ice cream based on a feature of reality that is objectively true for everyone: say, your taste buds. You judge child abuse based on a feature of reality that is objectively true for everyone: say, Bust Nak's emotional response to such an action.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:40 amOr all three at the same time, where a) judging by one's own emotion is classed as objectivism, b) offering an opinion makes me a simple subjectivist and c) believe that morality is a subjective feature of reality makes me a subjectivist proper.
But objectivism (a) and subjectivism proper (c) are mutually exclusive, addressing the same issue with contrary answers.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:40 am
What does "it is how I roll" mean? What is a synonym of that? One of the options I mentioned about why one might like chocolate? Something else?
It's how I am made, I was born like that. Just more generalised form of I have certain taste buds on my tongue.
Then, as I've said, you are an objectivist here. Notice we are talking about Bust Nak's favorite taste, not ice cream taste in general (which we both believe is subjective).
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:40 amIs it all that useful to distinguish between different kinds of opinion? The kind of things that would be useful to distinguish would be "the Earth is a globe" vs "ice-cream is nice" but we typically just treat the former as a fact and ignore the opinion aspect of that claim.
This is what I see when you write the above: Is it useful to distinguish between objective and non-objective kinds of opinions when (as our conversation has been about) talking about whether our opinions are objective or non-objective? It's not only useful, it can't be escaped. It's trivially true.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #760

Post by Bust Nak »

Break from my break, ready for more.
The Tanager wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:45 pm If I'm understanding your confusion correctly, then here's a try at straightening what I meant out. I believe simple subjectivism and subjectivism proper (or objectivism) can be taken as focusing on different parts of the same phrase. Simple subjectivism simply shares what the opinion is without analyzing what kind of reason is given for the opinion being held. Objectivism/Subjectivism Proper addresses what kind of reason Y is.

So, "I feel people should do X because of Y," where Y is "people's opinion" is subjectivism proper because the focus is now on what kind of reason Y is that leads to the opinion one has, Y being a subjective fact of reality. Does that help at all?
Sure, this bit does, but aren't you just affirming my claim that the same statement can be simple subjectivism and objectivism, depending on which bit of the statement you are focusing on?
So, above, we have that The Tanager [Person A] judges X [Johnny is right to eat pistachio] is best because of Y [The Tanager judges Johnny eating pistachio is best]. So, Person A judges that X is best because Person A judges that X is best. That's just saying my opinion is my opinion. It's not addressing objectivism/subjectivism proper.
Okay, but that doesn't seem to address my point that judging pistachio is fundamentally the same as judging Johnny's taste re: pistachio, which in turn is fundamentally the same as judging Johnny's child abuse. (In other words, my opinion that "child abuse is wrong" does seem to be like The Tanager's opinion that "chocolate ice cream is the best.")
I didn't say it's weird to judge in this way. I said it's weird to judge in this way and consider it subjectivism proper.
At a glance, this seem to be different from what you typed before, "I think it's weird that you do this and claim to believe morality is a subjective feature of reality." I can believe morality is a subjective feature of reality, without considering "this is wrong because of my emotional response" subjectivism proper.
But objectivism (a) and subjectivism proper (c) are mutually exclusive, addressing the same issue with contrary answers.
If they are mutually exclusive, then one or both of the following must be false.
a) Judging by one's own emotion is a form of objectivism.
c) Believe that morality is a subjective feature of reality makes one a subjectivist proper.

Which one do you think is false? Or perhaps they are consistent but addressing different issue (or focusing on different part of the same statement?)
Then, as I've said, you are an objectivist here. Notice we are talking about Bust Nak's favorite taste, not ice cream taste in general (which we both believe is subjective).
But I am also a subjectivist proper, since I believe that morality is a subjective feature of morality.
This is what I see when you write the above: Is it useful to distinguish between objective and non-objective kinds of opinions when (as our conversation has been about) talking about whether our opinions are objective or non-objective? It's not only useful, it can't be escaped. It's trivially true.
My point was all opinions are non-objective. It's not useful to introduce a new category of "objective opinion" for the purpose of distinguishing between objective and non-objective kinds of opinions, when distinguishing between facts and opinions is already a thing.

Post Reply