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]

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.

That's what I've been saying (obviously not clear enough) all along. It seems we've finally reached some sort of understanding through terms. I'm not sure there is anything left to be said on the topic between us but if you think there is, then I'm still listening and will answer any question you pose.

[Bust Nak]

That's what I've been saying (obviously not clear enough) all along. It seems we've finally reached some sort of understanding through terms.

That wasn't the whole of it, you also thought that it was problematic that I switch between simple subjectivism and subjectivism proper. Is that still a sticking point?

[The Tanager]

That wasn't the whole of it, you also thought that it was problematic that I switch between simple subjectivism and subjectivism proper. Is that still a sticking point?

Here is another crack at categorizing what I have mind:

(1) The question involved
(2) What one's answer is (simple subjectivism)
(3) Whether one's answer is due to a fact of reality that is objective or subjective (objectivism/subjectivism proper)

Here is an example:

(1) Should one abuse a child?
(2) No/Yes. (simple subjectivism)
(3a) No/Yes, because of some objective fact of reality. (objectivism)
(3b) No/Yes, because of some subjective fact of reality. (subjectivism proper)

Do I think it is problematic to switch between (2) and (3)? No, not as issues. But yes, as an agent. To me, a simple subjectivist (the agent) simply stops at (2). A subjectivist proper answers (2) and (3). Does that distinction between the issue and the agent addressing the issue make sense?

Now, in our conversation, I don't think you really are switching from subjectivism to subjectivism proper on the question involved at all. So, asking me if I think you switching like that is problematic at all is akin to asking me when I stopped beating my wife.

Why do I say that? Let us look at the two statements that I think you think you are switching between subjectivism and subjectivism proper on. You have said both "I dislike child abuse" and "No moral opinion is true." You think the first is simple subjectivism and the second subjectivism proper. I agree. I just think you've switched the question involved. You've gone from answering "what should one faced with moral situation X do" to answering "what is your opinion on moral opinions".

Even moreso, on the first question ("what should one faced with moral situation X do"), I don't think you are stopping at simple subjectivism. In talking about why you think Johnny should not commit child abuse, you have not stopped at (2). You've given reasoning that Johnny should not commit child abuse because of your emotional response to child abuse. Your emotional response to child abuse is an objective fact of reality. That answer is a (3a). It's objectivism.

A subjective fact of reality would be something like "people's/one's emotional response(s) to child abuse." But if that is the deciding factor, then whether the judge thought child abuse was good or bad would ultimately depend on who they were judging, not his or herself.

[Bust Nak]

Here is another crack at categorizing what I have mind... Now, in our conversation, I don't think you really are switching from subjectivism to subjectivism proper on the question involved at all. So, asking me if I think you switching like that is problematic at all is akin to asking me when I stopped beating my wife.

Why do I say that? Let us look at the two statements that I think you think you are switching between subjectivism and subjectivism proper on. You have said both "I dislike child abuse" and "No moral opinion is true." You think the first is simple subjectivism and the second subjectivism proper. I agree. I just think you've switched the question involved. You've gone from answering "what should one faced with moral situation X do" to answering "what is your opinion on moral opinions".

Not seeing how that is different from "should one abuse a child?"
(2) No. (simple subjectivism) plus;
(3b) No, because of some subjective fact of reality i.e. whether one should abuse or not depends on how a subject feels AKA no moral opinion is true. (subjectivism proper)

Even moreso, on the first question ("what should one faced with moral situation X do"), I don't think you are stopping at simple subjectivism. In talking about why you think Johnny should not commit child abuse, you have not stopped at (2). You've given reasoning that Johnny should not commit child abuse because of your emotional response to child abuse. Your emotional response to child abuse is an objective fact of reality. That answer is a (3a). It's objectivism...

How would that have changed had I talked about why I think I should not commit child abuse, where I give the reasoning that I should not commit child abuse because of my emotional response to child abuse? My emotional response to child abuse is still an objective fact of reality. That means it's still (3a) objectivism?

A subjective fact of reality would be something like "people's/one's emotional response(s) to child abuse."

Am I not a person? An one with an emotional response to child abuse? Where this subjective fact of reality means child abuse was good or bad would ultimately depend on who is doing judging?

I am sure I've responded as much before, we can call it quits here if you don't have new answers.

[The Tanager]

Not seeing how that is different from "should one abuse a child?"
(2) No. (simple subjectivism) plus;
(3b) No, because of some subjective fact of reality i.e. whether one should abuse or not depends on how a subject feels AKA no moral opinion is true. (subjectivism proper)

Your (3b) here seems to have identical content to (2). In (2) you are answering the question with "this is how I feel". In your (3b) you are also simply answering the question with "this is how I feel". You aren't adding anything new. I think your wording is confusing you on that point. In your (3b) you say "depends on how a subject feels" which gives the appearance of a vague comment on the subjectivity of feelings but it's very objectively specific. The subjective fact is that you feel one way AND Johnny feels the complete opposite way. You aren't basing your opinion on that. You are basing your opinion on an objective fact: how it makes you, and you alone, feel.

How would that have changed had I talked about why I think I should not commit child abuse, where I give the reasoning that I should not commit child abuse because of my emotional response to child abuse? My emotional response to child abuse is still an objective fact of reality. That means it's still (3a) objectivism?

Morality is about more than just what we think we should do; it's also about what we think others should do. But if you are going to narrow onto what one thinks he should do, then you are basing the should on an objective fact of reality.

A subjective fact of reality would be something like "people's/one's emotional response(s) to child abuse."

Am I not a person? An one with an emotional response to child abuse? Where this subjective fact of reality means child abuse was good or bad would ultimately depend on who is doing judging?

You are a specific person. A fact of reality being subjective necessarily concerns more than one person, so that the truth of it can be different for different people/subjects.

[Bust Nak]

In your (3b) you are also simply answering the question with "this is how I feel".

But you said "I like this because it is an objective fact" counts as a (3b) is that not also this is how I feel? Why does that "this is how I feel" get elevated to a fact of reality when another "this is how I feel" doesn't?

Morality is about more than just what we think we should do; it's also about what we think others should do. But if you are going to narrow onto what one thinks he should do, then you are basing the should on an objective fact of reality.

That doesn't answer my question if narrowing onto what one thinks he should do, implies I am basing the should on an objective fact of reality, then does narrowing onto what one thinks I myself should do, also imply I am basing the should on an objective fact of reality? If not, why not?

You are a specific person. A fact of reality being subjective necessarily concerns more than one person, so that the truth of it can be different for different people/subjects.

Right, but why would that imply whether the judge thought child abuse was good or bad would ultimately depend on who they were judging, not his or herself? As opposed to ultimately depend on who is doing judging?

[The Tanager]

But you said "I like this because it is an objective fact" counts as a (3b) is that not also this is how I feel? Why does that "this is how I feel" get elevated to a fact of reality when another "this is how I feel" doesn't?

No, "I like this because it is an objective fact" counts as a (3a). In our context we have:

Person X dislikes child abuse.
God made humans in a way that child abuse is bad.
Child abuse is liked by some and disliked by others.

The first two (if true) are objective facts. The subjective fact is the third one.

Morality is about more than just what we think we should do; it's also about what we think others should do. But if you are going to narrow onto what one thinks he should do, then you are basing the should on an objective fact of reality.

That doesn't answer my question if narrowing onto what one thinks he should do, implies I am basing the should on an objective fact of reality, then does narrowing onto what one thinks I myself should do, also imply I am basing the should on an objective fact of reality? If not, why not?

The "he" of my sentence refers to the "he" who is doing the thinking, so I see those as identical statements.

Right, but why would that imply whether the judge thought child abuse was good or bad would ultimately depend on who they were judging, not his or herself? As opposed to ultimately depend on who is doing judging?

Of course what I think is good/bad ultimately depends on what I think is good/bad. That's trivially true. But I can think something is good/bad based on an objective truth outside of myself, an objective truth about myself, or a subjective truth of reality.

[Bust Nak]

No, "I like this because it is an objective fact" counts as a (3a).

Sorry, typo, I meant (3a). My question was suppose to be, if that counts as 3a instead of a 2, why "no because of some subjective fact of reality i.e. no moral opinion is true" count as 3b instead of a 2, when both are "this is how I feel?"

The "he" of my sentence refers to the "he" who is doing the thinking, so I see those as identical statements.

"So Johnny shouldn't abuse children because of Johnny's (the he who is doing the thinking) emotional response" is objectivism!? That cannot be what you meant.

Of course what I think is good/bad ultimately depends on what I think is good/bad. That's trivially true. But I can think something is good/bad based on an objective truth outside of myself, an objective truth about myself, or a subjective truth of reality.

Remind me.
It's good because an objective truth outside of myself is obviously (3a.)
It's good because a subjective truth of reality looks like a (3b.)
What is It's good because a objective truth about myself supposed to be? It doesn't look like a (2.)

[The Tanager]

Sorry, typo, I meant (3a). My question was suppose to be, if that counts as 3a instead of a 2, why "no because of some subjective fact of reality i.e. no moral opinion is true" count as 3b instead of a 2, when both are "this is how I feel?"

How one particular person feels is an objective fact. The subjective fact is that people feel differently from each other. You base your moral judgment on child abuse on how one person feels, not on the fact that people feel differently from each other.

"So Johnny shouldn't abuse children because of Johnny's (the he who is doing the thinking) emotional response" is objectivism!? That cannot be what you meant.

If one is only wanting to focus on what they should do and they say "I shouldn't abuse children because of my emotional response," then they are making that judgment because of an objective fact of reality. If objectivism/subjectivism can refer to that narrow of a moral statement (what I should do in moral situation X rather than what people should do in moral situation X), then that view is objectivism. Whether Johnny is the "I" or someone else is.

If one is saying "I, Susan, think that Johnny shouldn't abuse children because of Johnny's emotional response to child abuse," (i.e., Susan is the she doing the thinking) then I'm not sure if that is enough information to say whether it is objectivism or subjectivism. I need clarification on what is meant here. If Susan thinks that everyone should do what their emotional response tells them to do (i.e., Johnny dislikes child abuse and, therefore, shouldn't do it, but Jimmy likes it and, therefore, should do it), then that seems to show Susan making her moral judgment based on a subjective fact of reality, namely, that people have different emotional reactions and should make their own decisions based on their own emotional reaction as opposed to everyone making their decision based on the same standard.

Remind me.
It's good because an objective truth outside of myself is obviously (3a.)
It's good because a subjective truth of reality looks like a (3b.)
What is It's good because a objective truth about myself supposed to be? It doesn't look like a (2.)

A (2) doesn't get into the reason someone believes what they do. It simply states what their view is. The reason someone holds view X can only be objective or subjective. There isn't another logical option, at least as far as I can see. So, "it's good for me (or for everyone) because of an objective truth about myself" would both be (3a)s.

Let me frame a (3b) in a similar way to show the difference that I think may be causing some confusion. "I think it's good/bad because of different objective truths about the person I'm judging." That is basing my moral judgment on the subjective fact of reality that different people have different objective emotional reactions to moral situation X. Those objective differences change my view of what is good/bad in moral situation X.

[Bust Nak]

How one particular person feels is an objective fact. The subjective fact is that people feel differently from each other. You base your moral judgment on child abuse on how one person feels, not on the fact that people feel differently from each other.

Okay, then going back to the original point, I am not really answering "should one abuse a child?" with a (3b) at all, just (2)?

If one is only wanting to focus on what they should do and they say "I shouldn't abuse children because of my emotional response," then they are making that judgment because of an objective fact of reality. If objectivism/subjectivism can refer to that narrow of a moral statement (what I should do in moral situation X rather than what people should do in moral situation X), then that view is objectivism. Whether Johnny is the "I" or someone else is.

If one is saying "I, Susan, think that Johnny shouldn't abuse children because of Johnny's emotional response to child abuse," (i.e., Susan is the she doing the thinking) then I'm not sure if that is enough information to say whether it is objectivism or subjectivism. I need clarification on what is meant here. If Susan thinks that everyone should do what their emotional response tells them to do (i.e., Johnny dislikes child abuse and, therefore, shouldn't do it, but Jimmy likes it and, therefore, should do it), then that seems to show Susan making her moral judgment based on a subjective fact of reality, namely, that people have different emotional reactions and should make their own decisions based on their own emotional reaction as opposed to everyone making their decision based on the same standard...So, "it's good for me (or for everyone) because of an objective truth about myself" would both be (3a)s

I am sure I told you this before, it's utterly bizarre that "I shouldn't abuse children because of my emotional response" count as objectivism.

Let me frame a (3b) in a similar way to show the difference that I think may be causing some confusion. "I think it's good/bad because of different objective truths about the person I'm judging." That is basing my moral judgment on the subjective fact of reality that different people have different objective emotional reactions to moral situation X. Those objective differences change my view of what is good/bad in moral situation X.

How is this different from "it's good for me (or for everyone) because my emotional response to the fact people feel differently from each other"?