Subjective Morality

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 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: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #721

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:03 amAnd if you meant all relevant truths, then the question becomes whether the fact that taste is an objective feature of reality is relevant when it comes to judging the freedom there of. The kind of sexual encounter an individual finds most arousing is a subjective feature of reality, yet you don't care one bit about that fact in wanting child sex abuse banned.
Yes, I mean relevant truths and, yes, there is the separate question of what is relevant that can (and should) be asked and answered by all involved. I think judging the freedom of something is most reasonably tied to whether something is grounded in an objective or subjective feature of reality. You seem to think that is sometimes the case, but sometimes not, which doesn't make sense to me.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #722

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #722]

Why does it have to make sense? I am appealing to pure taste here. I think being religious is objectively/factually a mistake, harmful even, yet I still allow people the freedom to be religious. Grounded in an objective or not doesn't seem all that relevant to me.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #723

Post by The Tanager »

I like to believe things that make sense to me. I can't imagine believing something that doesn't make sense. Understand everything about it, no, but it's got to not be against sense.

I don't think you have been appealing to pure taste in this thread. You have said you are against people teaching flat earth theory, at least in part, because it goes against objective truth. That's going beyond pure taste.

If you are here saying that your views on religious beliefs, however, are purely on taste, then that just doesn't make sense. Why are religious beliefs pure taste, but people teaching flat earth theory not? It can't be pure taste, or people teaching flat earth theory would also be pure taste. If you are now clarifying that even that is just pure taste for you and has nothing to do with the Earth's shape being an objective reality, then you aren't addressing the issue objectivism/subjectivism addresses at all; you are simply sharing your views, i.e., simple subjectivism.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #724

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:17 pm I like to believe things that make sense to me. I can't imagine believing something that doesn't make sense. Understand everything about it, no, but it's got to not be against sense.
Not making sense is not the same thing as against sense. Recall the conversation we have where you tried to explain why you like certain piece of music, re: rhythm, melody and lyrics? You acknowledged that I can keep pushing you to explain further and further, eventually you would be stuck with "I just like it, it's how I roll, taste is in the eye of the beholder." That is believing something that doesn't make sense, you don't need to imagine it, as you've already experienced it.
I don't think you have been appealing to pure taste in this thread. You have said you are against people teaching flat earth theory, at least in part, because it goes against objective truth. That's going beyond pure taste.
I said I am against people teaching flat earth theory, because I don't like it when people goes against objective truth. That's pure taste in the sense that there is no new information, I am saying the same thing twice, "I don't like it because I don't like it" that you argued for before.

That Earth shape is grounded to an objective feature of reality is involved ("like-plus") in the same way the rhythm is involved in music preference ("like" plus rhythm.) The liking part is the same, the thing being liked is different.

Do you agree that music taste is pure taste? I supposed you can argue whether music taste is really pure taste or not, suffice to say, I treat allowing flat Earth the same way I treat music taste, the same way I treat ice-cream taste.
If you are here saying that your views on religious beliefs, however, are purely on taste, then that just doesn't make sense. Why are religious beliefs pure taste, but people teaching flat earth theory not?
Both are pure taste. (Or at least as much taste as each other.)
If you are now clarifying that even that is just pure taste for you and has nothing to do with the Earth's shape being an objective reality, then you aren't addressing the issue objectivism/subjectivism addresses at all; you are simply sharing your views, i.e., simple subjectivism.
I can affirming I am definitely doing simple subjectivism but why not both? From what you said last week, I was under the impression that "I like the objective truth" is a "like-plus" which is objectivism/subjectivism proper?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #725

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:24 pmI said I am against people teaching flat earth theory, because I don't like it when people goes against objective truth. That's pure taste in the sense that there is no new information, I am saying the same thing twice, "I don't like it because I don't like it" that you argued for before.
How can those be saying the same thing twice? In your previous post you said what seems like the equivalent of: "I like religious freedom" even though "it's objectively wrong." Your like/dislike is not equivalent to objectively correct/incorrect. Yet, above, you are saying they are equivalent.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:24 pmThat Earth shape is grounded to an objective feature of reality is involved ("like-plus") in the same way the rhythm is involved in music preference ("like" plus rhythm.) The liking part is the same, the thing being liked is different.
In both we are dealing with some object outside of ourselves, some "objective feature of reality." We are talking about why we like/dislike those objects. I like/dislike the objective feature of reality we call music because of some truth within myself alone [Certain sounds, rhythyms, etc. bring wanted emotions to the surface] that differs from what is true for other people on that issue. It doesn't matter whether music taste is objective or subjective.

I like/dislike the objective feature of reality we call scientific theories because of some truth inside of myself (I like corresponding with reality) which could be different from other people (I don't know, maybe a pragmatist that believes not corresponding with reality is more helpful in a specific issue) and one outside of myself (that there is an objectively correct truth on the issue). Change the last thing and my preference changes.

I like/dislike the objective feature of reality we call personal music choices because of some truth inside of myself (I like allowing personal freedom when harm is not done to one's self or others) which may not be shared by all and one outside of myself (that music taste is a subjective feature of reality).
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:24 pmDo you agree that music taste is pure taste? I supposed you can argue whether music taste is really pure taste or not, suffice to say, I treat allowing flat Earth the same way I treat music taste, the same way I treat ice-cream taste.
Yes, I believe music taste is pure taste.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:24 pmI can affirming I am definitely doing simple subjectivism but why not both? From what you said last week, I was under the impression that "I like the objective truth" is a "like-plus" which is objectivism/subjectivism proper?
It logically can't be both if we are speaking about the same concepts here. To me, either (1) simple subjectivism means ignoring the objectivism/subjectivism issue completely or (2) simple subjectivism, objectivism, and subjectivism are three distinct ways to explain why someone has the preferences they do.

If it is (1), then you can't ignore objectivism/subjectivism and do both because by doing objectivism/subjectivism you aren't ignoring it.

If it is (2), then you either have a preference for X because (a) the fact that you like X has nothing to do with Y being objective or subjective, you like X simply because of some truth within yourself, (b) Y being objective informs why you like X, or (c) Y being subjective informs why you like X. Logically, it can't be (a) and (c).

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #726

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:49 pm How can those be saying the same thing twice? In your previous post you said what seems like the equivalent of: "I like religious freedom" even though "it's objectively wrong." Your like/dislike is not equivalent to objectively correct/incorrect. Yet, above, you are saying they are equivalent.
I am saying I like it is equivalent to I want to allow it, and I don't like it is equivalent to I want to ban it, these are saying the same thing twice. Objectively correct/incorrect is not equivalent to likes and dislikes, it is equivalent to the rhythm of a piece of music.
In both we are dealing with some object outside of ourselves, some "objective feature of reality." We are talking about why we like/dislike those objects. I like/dislike the objective feature of reality we call music because of some truth within myself alone [Certain sounds, rhythyms, etc. bring wanted emotions to the surface] that differs from what is true for other people on that issue. It doesn't matter whether music taste is objective or subjective.
So far so good, but how is the following...
I like/dislike the objective feature of reality we call scientific theories because of some truth inside of myself (I like corresponding with reality) which could be different from other people (I don't know, maybe a pragmatist that believes not corresponding with reality is more helpful in a specific issue) and one outside of myself (that there is an objectively correct truth on the issue). Change the last thing and my preference changes.
... Different from:

I like/dislike the objective feature of reality we call music because of some truth inside of myself (Certain sounds, rhythms, etc. bring wanted emotions to the surface) which could be different from other people (as expected when dealing with how one feels) and one outside of myself (that the average tempo is around 120 bps). Change the last thing and my preference changes? By rephrasing the paragraph, suddenly I am not doing simple subjectivism in liking a piece of music anymore.
I like/dislike the objective feature of reality we call personal music choices because of some truth inside of myself (I like allowing personal freedom when harm is not done to one's self or others) which may not be shared by all and one outside of myself (that music taste is a subjective feature of reality).
Still don't see why this and not: I like/dislike the objective feature of reality we call personal music choices because of some truth within myself alone [personal freedom plus no harm done, etc. bring wanted emotions to the surface] that differs from what is true for other people on that issue. It doesn't matter whether music taste is objective or subjective.
It logically can't be both if we are speaking about the same concepts here. To me, either (1) simple subjectivism means ignoring the objectivism/subjectivism issue completely or (2) simple subjectivism, objectivism, and subjectivism are three distinct ways to explain why someone has the preferences they do.

If it is (1), then you can't ignore objectivism/subjectivism and do both because by doing objectivism/subjectivism you aren't ignoring it.

If it is (2), then you either have a preference for X because (a) the fact that you like X has nothing to do with Y being objective or subjective, you like X simply because of some truth within yourself, (b) Y being objective informs why you like X, or (c) Y being subjective informs why you like X. Logically, it can't be (a) and (c).
"I like objective truths because objective truths gives me warm feelings" seems like a valid enough and simple enough proposition, how would you describe that in the two frameworks here. I might have asked you this before. It takes the same form as "I like music because music gives me warm feelings," I like it because of feelings that is purely within myself, yet it sounds a bit like truths being objective informs why I like it?

Can one do simple subjectivism and beats-per-minute-objectivity at the same time?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #727

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:27 amhow is the following...
I like/dislike the objective feature of reality we call scientific theories because of some truth inside of myself (I like corresponding with reality) which could be different from other people (I don't know, maybe a pragmatist that believes not corresponding with reality is more helpful in a specific issue) and one outside of myself (that there is an objectively correct truth on the issue). Change the last thing and my preference changes.
... Different from:
I like/dislike the objective feature of reality we call music because of some truth inside of myself (Certain sounds, rhythms, etc. bring wanted emotions to the surface) which could be different from other people (as expected when dealing with how one feels) and one outside of myself (that the average tempo is around 120 bps). Change the last thing and my preference changes? By rephrasing the paragraph, suddenly I am not doing simple subjectivism in liking a piece of music anymore.
The thing you are putting "outside of myself" in the second is just a rewording of the preference we are analyzing. The average tempo being around 120 bps is a feature of the music we are analyzing as to why we like it. I'm open to changing the terminology but the concepts are still the same. Why do I have that preference, that when affected by an actual tempo of music I enjoy it? I do so because of a truth inside of myself (that I experience good feelings when others don't listening to the same piece of music) not because of any seperate truth outside of myself.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:27 am
I like/dislike the objective feature of reality we call personal music choices because of some truth inside of myself (I like allowing personal freedom when harm is not done to one's self or others) which may not be shared by all and one outside of myself (that music taste is a subjective feature of reality).
Still don't see why this and not: I like/dislike the objective feature of reality we call personal music choices because of some truth within myself alone [personal freedom plus no harm done, etc. bring wanted emotions to the surface] that differs from what is true for other people on that issue. It doesn't matter whether music taste is objective or subjective.
But it does matter whether music taste is objective or subjective. If music taste were/became objective, I'd still have the same truth within myself. I have wanted emotions from allowing freedom when no harm is done that may differ from other people. But my view we are analyzing would change. I would no longer be for personal freedom in music choices in spite of my "inside truth" remaining unchanged.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:27 am
It logically can't be both if we are speaking about the same concepts here. To me, either (1) simple subjectivism means ignoring the objectivism/subjectivism issue completely or (2) simple subjectivism, objectivism, and subjectivism are three distinct ways to explain why someone has the preferences they do.

If it is (1), then you can't ignore objectivism/subjectivism and do both because by doing objectivism/subjectivism you aren't ignoring it.

If it is (2), then you either have a preference for X because (a) the fact that you like X has nothing to do with Y being objective or subjective, you like X simply because of some truth within yourself, (b) Y being objective informs why you like X, or (c) Y being subjective informs why you like X. Logically, it can't be (a) and (c).
"I like objective truths because objective truths gives me warm feelings" seems like a valid enough and simple enough proposition, how would you describe that in the two frameworks here. I might have asked you this before. It takes the same form as "I like music because music gives me warm feelings," I like it because of feelings that is purely within myself, yet it sounds a bit like truths being objective informs why I like it?
If it is in framework (1), then it isn't making a claim about whether objective truths exist or not. If it is in framework (2), then it seems to be a (b), where the reason you experience the warm feelings is informed by it being an objective truth.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #728

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:03 pm The thing you are putting "outside of myself" in the second is just a rewording of the preference we are analyzing. The average tempo being around 120 bps is a feature of the music we are analyzing as to why we like it...
Right, and I am saying the exact same thing applies to what you said about scientific theories. Being the objective truth is a feature of a scientific claim we are analyzing as to why we like it. Why do you have that preference, that when affected by the factual nature of a claim you enjoy it? You do so because of a truth inside of yourself (that you experience good feelings when others might not) not because of any separate truth outside of yourself.
But it does matter whether music taste is objective or subjective. If music taste were/became objective, I'd still have the same truth within myself. I have wanted emotions from allowing freedom when no harm is done that may differ from other people. But my view we are analyzing would change. I would no longer be for personal freedom in music choices in spite of my "inside truth" remaining unchanged.
But why though?
If it is in framework (1), then it isn't making a claim about whether objective truths exist or not. If it is in framework (2), then it seems to be a (b), where the reason you experience the warm feelings is informed by it being an objective truth.
Okay, that sounded a bit like in framework (1) I am doing simple subjectivism, while in framework (2) I am doing subjectivism/objectivism proper? That would explain why I think I can do both at the same time.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #729

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:36 pmBeing the objective truth is a feature of a scientific claim we are analyzing as to why we like it. Why do you have that preference, that when affected by the factual nature of a claim you enjoy it? You do so because of a truth inside of yourself (that you experience good feelings when others might not) not because of any separate truth outside of yourself.
That focuses on the fact of whether X can be described as a preference we have within ourselves. I've never disputed that. I'm still preferring these things for different reasons, which is the focus we are discussing. I don't dislike people teaching flat earth theory because I experience unpleasant feelings at the thought of it (the truth inside of me). Even if I experienced pleasant feelings, I would be against it. My preference depends on whether the shape of the Earth is an objective fact or not (the truth outside of me). If it is, then that consideration overrides any emotions I get surrounding the subject.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:36 pm
If it is in framework (1), then it isn't making a claim about whether objective truths exist or not. If it is in framework (2), then it seems to be a (b), where the reason you experience the warm feelings is informed by it being an objective truth.
Okay, that sounded a bit like in framework (1) I am doing simple subjectivism, while in framework (2) I am doing subjectivism/objectivism proper? That would explain why I think I can do both at the same time.
But in framework (2) it sounds like you are doing the third option, not subjectivism/objectivism proper. You seem to be saying your moral view depends on the truth inside of you (how child abuse makes you feel) rather a truth outside of you (child abuse having an objective truth or it being true that reactions to child abuse are a subjective feature of reality).

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #730

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:04 pm Even if I experienced pleasant feelings, I would be against it. My preference depends on whether the shape of the Earth is an objective fact or not (the truth outside of me). If it is, then that consideration overrides any emotions I get surrounding the subject.
That's just two contrasting preferences. For example, I like the taste of ice-cream but I like healthy breakfast, and pleasant feeling with healthy breakfast overrides pleasant taste? Both are truths within oneself.
But in framework (2) it sounds like you are doing the third option, not subjectivism/objectivism proper.
Sometimes I am, with music taste and morality, but it's the second option with flat Earth.
You seem to be saying your moral view depends on the truth inside of you (how child abuse makes you feel) rather a truth outside of you (child abuse having an objective truth or it being true that reactions to child abuse are a subjective feature of reality).
Yep.

Post Reply