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]

I'm saying that when talking about the aesthetic value of music being objective or subjective, we aren't talking about anyone's particular opinion that rap music is good or bad. To say the value is subjective is not incoherent. Obviously, we are talking about a person's opinion that the aesthetic value of morality is subjective.

Right, but once we established that aesthetic value of music is subjective (and we have done that much,) the conclusion that "rap music is good" by itself is incomplete without the accompanying subject holding that opinion, follows trivially. There is a huge difference between an opinion that is not held by anyone in particular, and an opinion that exists in isolation without a subject.

So, you took out the "(subjective truth)" parenthesis? It has no advantage because (subjective truth) is a synonym for "depends on the taste of who you ask". Just like "(objective truth)" is a synonym for "depends...on some fact outside of their own mind/opinion/taste."

If there is no advantage, why complicate things with two version of truths? Just use "opinion" and "truth" in place of "subjective truth" and "objective truth."

But I'm not saying that. I'm not saying R is true full stop and not-R is true full stop. I'm saying that R is true for my son and R is false for Bust Nak.

Same as above: Why not say, your son holds the opinion R, while Bust Nak holds the opposite opinion? This is more than just semantics, as this is pretty much the basis of the "your opinion true for everyone/objective taste" line of questioning.

They are either agnostic or simply aren't addressing that issue, although they hold a position... They would, I think, simply follow their opinion without any thought about it being subjective or objective.

Yes, they are simple subjectivists-plus.

How can you tell the difference from the simple subjectivist plus objectivist, from the simple subjectivist who do hold objectivism or the agnostic simple subjectivist, when all you can confirm externally, is that all three are yelling at the flat Earther "you are wrong, the Earth is not flat?"

Point being, you see me yell at Johnny, "child abuse is wrong" and conclude I am merely a simple subjectivist, even leaning on objectivism, and that you are expecting to see something different.

The objectivist is making at least two appraisals in this case: (1) that he believes the earth is a ball and (2) that the earth is a ball for everyone else as well (whether they believe the earth is a ball or flat). Stopping at (1)...or also stating that Johnny believes the earth is flat...is simple subjectivism.

Right, similarly I am making at least two appraisals in the other case: (1) that I believe child abuse is immoral when Johnny does it and (2) that this is only my opinion, Johnny has his own.

When you say that "'the earth is flat' is wrong for Johnny to believe," is that subjectivism?

Depends on the meaning of "wrong." Wrong as in immoral, that's subjectivism proper - my appraisal and it is one out of many. Wrong as in incorrect, that's objectivism. There is an ambiguity that does not exist in subjective matters, as correctness can be ruled out.

I think there are two senses of subjective and objective we are discussing, which is a big part of the confusion. We are a subject and we think about objects. Everything we say is subjective in that sense. I think simple subjectivism addresses that sense of subjectivism. What do the various subjects that exist say?

But we are also interested in what kinds of things subjects say. Objectivists say there is a truth outside of the particular individual under consideration which makes something true, whether that individual subjectively agrees with it or not. Others disagree with objectivists and say there is no truth outside of particular individuals' subjective opinions on the matter.

The aesthetic value of music is an object we think about that depends on everyone's individual aesthetic tastes; thus we call the aesthetic value of music a subjective thing. The value of the shape of the earth is an object that we think does not depend on people's individual tastes; thus we think there is an objective truth.

Right, either way, there is one subject saying something about an object, regardless of whether that something is objective or subjective. As such I still don't see how "I appraise that child abuse is immoral for Johnny as well" is coherent. If I am the one appraising, then the appraising is done for me, not for Johnny. And if I am correct about that, then Johnny's appraisal is not part of the equation at all when I am the subject. Nor is my appraisal is part of the equation at all when Johnny is the subject. There would never be a scenario where both of our appraisal are at play. (Other than something like Johnny respecting me to such an extent that he adopts my view as his own, but even in that case, it's still Johnny doing an appraisal for himself by adopting mine.)

I think you are acting as though your opinion is all there is when you look at morality; not that opinions are all there is. Child abuse is wrong for you because your objective taste is against it.

Is there a typo here? Subjective taste surely, wrong for me where I am the subject is still objective?

Child abuse is wrong for Johnny because your objective taste is against it.

As above, wrong for Johnny is incoherent when I am the subject doing the appraisal. Wrong when Johnny does it, on the other hand, takes Johnny's opinion out of the equation.

You don't think moral taste is dependent on people's subjective tastes; you hold your subjective tastes up as the objective judge for all.

But it is dependent on people's subjective tastes, the person that is relevant when I am the subject, is me.

We aren't talking about my judgement of individual kinds of music here but my judgment of music taste itself. Judging music taste as a subjective thing means thinking there is nothing outside of everyone's opinion, including the objective feature of reality known as The Tanager's view on what makes good music, to judge everyone's music taste by.

I don't see how that makes a difference, the object is different, but we are just judging objects based on our personal opinion. You do accept that there is no objective feature of reality to judge everyone's music taste by, just as there is no objective feature of reality to judge music by, right?

You judge music based on personal preference, you judge music A as superior to music B, where there is no objective feature of reality to judge music by.

But you don't judge music taste based on personal preference, music taste A is just as good or valid to music taste B, where there is no objective feature of reality to judge music taste by.

Why do you act differently? Surely you are not implying there is something objective to judge music and music taste by?

I don't judge music tastes by my subjective preference. I think differing musical tastes are just as good or valid as my own. I treat moral tastes differently; some are not as good or valid as my own.

This isn't so different from "I judge music tastes by my subjective preference, my appraisal is that differing musical tastes are just as good or valid as my own. I treat moral tastes similarly by judging it by my subjective preference; my appraisal there is that some are not as good or valid as my own."

Point being, you can't just look at the "other tastes are just as good or valid as my own" and "other tastes are not as good or valid as my own" part as the deciding factor/indicator between subjective matter and objective matter.

We judge our opinion of the shape of the earth as superior to others. That's saying opinion is not all there is. To say that opinion is all there is to it means not judging our opinion as superior to others' opinions.

Looks like a non-sequitur to me. I don't see how judging our opinion of the shape of the earth as superior to others, we are saying opinion is not all there is. I say opinion is not all there is because the shape of the Earth is an objective matter, regardless of how I rate my opinion.

[The Tanager]

Right, but once we established that aesthetic value of music is subjective (and we have done that much,) the conclusion that "rap music is good" by itself is incomplete without the accompanying subject holding that opinion, follows trivially. There is a huge difference between an opinion that is not held by anyone in particular, and an opinion that exists in isolation without a subject.

The statement, as probably intended, is incomplete, yes. But if someone wants to talk about what kind of thing the aesthetic value of music is, then it's not incomplete or incoherent. I was talking about it in that latter sense in post 390 to which you responded that it was incomplete. I was talking about it (and the objective truth of the shape of the earth), not because somebody held that opinion, but to help us analyze what you think about morality.

If there is no advantage, why complicate things with two version of truths? Just use "opinion" and "truth" in place of "subjective truth" and "objective truth."

I'm not sure that uncomplicates things. It is a truth that you have an opinion about the aesthetic value of rap music. I've been trying to wrap my brain around words to clarify the different senses of subjective/objective/opinion/truth but we use the same terms for different concepts. It's causing confusion in our analysis of each other's views.

Why not say, your son holds the opinion R, while Bust Nak holds the opposite opinion? This is more than just semantics, as this is pretty much the basis of the "your opinion true for everyone/objective taste" line of questioning.

Could you make that connection clearer for me?

How can you tell the difference from the simple subjectivist plus objectivist, from the simple subjectivist who do hold objectivism or the agnostic simple subjectivist, when all you can confirm externally, is that all three are yelling at the flat Earther "you are wrong, the Earth is not flat?"

I doubt many people who are just talking about what the flat earther's opinion (or their own) is are going to say "you are wrong, the Earth is not flat." They would say something like "that's not my view" or "you are lying, you don't really think that." But, all in all, context and further questioning can help us draw things out.

Point being, you see me yell at Johnny, "child abuse is wrong" and conclude I am merely a simple subjectivist, even leaning on objectivism, and that you are expecting to see something different.

I'm not basing that on a four word phrase but the entire context of our conversation.

The objectivist is making at least two appraisals in this case: (1) that he believes the earth is a ball and (2) that the earth is a ball for everyone else as well (whether they believe the earth is a ball or flat). Stopping at (1)...or also stating that Johnny believes the earth is flat...is simple subjectivism.

Right, similarly I am making at least two appraisals in the other case: (1) that I believe child abuse is immoral when Johnny does it and (2) that this is only my opinion, Johnny has his own.

But if your (2) is addressing the same issue my (2) is and you are disagreeing with me, then that would mean that you think one thing is true/good for you and another thing is true/good for Johnny because my (2) is saying that there is one true/good thing for everyone.

Depends on the meaning of "wrong." Wrong as in immoral, that's subjectivism proper - my appraisal and it is one out of many. Wrong as in incorrect, that's objectivism. There is an ambiguity that does not exist in subjective matters, as correctness can be ruled out.

That makes it sound like you are saying that "child abuse is good" doesn't match your opinion, but it's not incorrect. What does that mean? Why fault Johnny for holding an opinion that you think is not incorrect?

Right, either way, there is one subject saying something about an object, regardless of whether that something is objective or subjective. As such I still don't see how "I appraise that child abuse is immoral for Johnny as well" is coherent. If I am the one appraising, then the appraising is done for me, not for Johnny.

What do you mean that it is done for you?

And if I am correct about that, then Johnny's appraisal is not part of the equation at all when I am the subject. Nor is my appraisal is part of the equation at all when Johnny is the subject. There would never be a scenario where both of our appraisal are at play. (Other than something like Johnny respecting me to such an extent that he adopts my view as his own, but even in that case, it's still Johnny doing an appraisal for himself by adopting mine.)

How can it not be a part of the equation (at least as an appraisal, not that it is Johnny's) when you are reflecting on whether opinion is all there is concerning morality? If you were only considering your moral opinions on issues, how can you conclude that your opinion is one among many opinions, with none of them being objectively true.

I think you are acting as though your opinion is all there is when you look at morality; not that opinions are all there is. Child abuse is wrong for you because your objective taste is against it.

Is there a typo here? Subjective taste surely, wrong for me where I am the subject is still objective?

In the context of various opinions (which is the context for saying opinion is all there is), your opinion is an objective fact of reality (even though that objective feature is talking about your subjective opinion).

I don't see how that makes a difference, the object is different, but we are just judging objects based on our personal opinion. You do accept that there is no objective feature of reality to judge everyone's music taste by, just as there is no objective feature of reality to judge music by, right?

It is an objective feature of reality that you have specific tastes that rap music does not tingle. You can't just choose to change your mind.

You judge music based on personal preference, you judge music A as superior to music B, where there is no objective feature of reality to judge music by.

My personal preference in music is an objective feature of reality. It's true for everyone that I think folk music is good. My personal opinion on the shape of the earth is an objective feature of reality. It's true for everyone that I think the earth is a ball.

But you don't judge music taste based on personal preference, music taste A is just as good or valid to music taste B, where there is no objective feature of reality to judge music taste by. Why do you act differently? Surely you are not implying there is something objective to judge music and music taste by?

It's not true for everyone that folk music is good. That is not an objective feature of reality (whereas the shape of the earth is). Musical taste, therefore, is something that depends on the individual's subjective preferences (which are objective features of reality).

This isn't so different from "I judge music tastes by my subjective preference, my appraisal is that differing musical tastes are just as good or valid as my own. I treat moral tastes similarly by judging it by my subjective preference; my appraisal there is that some are not as good or valid as my own."

Point being, you can't just look at the "other tastes are just as good or valid as my own" and "other tastes are not as good or valid as my own" part as the deciding factor/indicator between subjective matter and objective matter.

Your subjective preference/appraisal that "differing musical tastes are just as good or valid as my own" is a subjective preference/appraisal in the same way "the earth is a ball" is your subjective preference/appraisal; it's your belief on the matter.

But, returning to what we already went round and round about, the importance is why that is your belief on the matter. At the objectivist/subjectivist proper level, the first preference is based on the fact that you think opinion is all there is, while you don't think that about the second. Your subjective preference/appraisal/belief on morality mirrors the second, not the first.

Looks like a non-sequitur to me. I don't see how judging our opinion of the shape of the earth as superior to others, we are saying opinion is not all there is. I say opinion is not all there is because the shape of the Earth is an objective matter, regardless of how I rate my opinion.

If one thought opinion was all there was on this matter, then how could they say their opinion was objectively better or truer? They'd have nothing to objectively judge the opinions by.

You think Johnny should believe the earth is a ball, not because it is your opinion but because there is a truth outside of Johnny's mind.

I would think that you think Johnny should enjoy rap music because it matches his subjective taste/opinion on rap music, not because it matches your subjective taste/opinion on rap music.

But then you think Johnny should believe child abuse is wrong (or, at least, shouldn't commit child abuse) because it is your opinion (a truth outside of Johnny's mind), not because it matches his subjective tastes.

[Bust Nak]

The statement, as probably intended, is incomplete, yes. But if someone wants to talk about what kind of thing the aesthetic value of music is, then it's not incomplete or incoherent...

Right, in other words, when we are entertaining the idea that music taste is an objective matter. But we've long established that we are both proper subjectivists when it comes to music taste, certainly before post#390. You even said you don't think that statement is neither objectively true nor false in the very next sentence you brought it up.

I'm not sure that uncomplicates things. It is a truth that you have an opinion about the aesthetic value of rap music. I've been trying to wrap my brain around words to clarify the different senses of subjective/objective/opinion/truth but we use the same terms for different concepts. It's causing confusion in our analysis of each other's views.

I still don't think this is a simple semantics issue.

Could you make that connection clearer for me?

Without the concept of subjective truth, the very statement "your opinion is true" become incoherent.

I doubt many people who are just talking about what the flat earther's opinion (or their own) is are going to say "you are wrong, the Earth is not flat." They would say something like "that's not my view" or "you are lying, you don't really think that." But, all in all, context and further questioning can help us draw things out.

Right, that's because you are operating under the presumption that the shape of the Earth is an objective matter. It's a good bet that others are also operating under that presumption, but you are still just guessing when all you have is access to what they tell you and how they act, baring some brain scan or lie detection kit. So why do you conclude that they are objectivist proper, when they tell a flat Earther, "you are wrong" they meant it in an objective matter of fact way, but conclude that when I tell Johnny, "you are wrong" I only meant it as a simple subjectivism way?

I'm not basing that on a four word phrase but the entire context of our conversation.

But this entire conversation, I've been telling you I am also saying matter is all there is to it. Yet you keep drawing the conversation back to simple subjectivism.

But if your (2) is addressing the same issue my (2) is and you are disagreeing with me, then that would mean that you think one thing is true/good for you and another thing is true/good for Johnny because my (2) is saying that there is one true/good thing for everyone.

That sounds about right, the term "same issue" threw me a bit. Clearly child abuse and the shape of the Earth is not the same issue. But I think I get you, my (2) is addressing objectivism vs subjectivism, just as your (2) is. Not sure what point you are trying to make though, if any.

That makes it sound like you are saying that "child abuse is good" doesn't match your opinion, but it's not incorrect. What does that mean?

It mean exactly what you typed here. It does not match my opinion but it's not incorrect, since correctness implies an objective way to verify the truth of "child abuse is good."

Why fault Johnny for holding an opinion that you think is not incorrect?

The same reason you fault country music, despite it not being an incorrect kind of music - it does not match my taste.

What do you mean that it is done for you?

Done on my behalf. In other words, I can only form opinions for myself, I cannot form opinions for Johnny. Johnny can only form opinion for himself, he cannot form opinions for me.

How can it not be a part of the equation (at least as an appraisal, not that it is Johnny's) when you are reflecting on whether opinion is all there is concerning morality?

Let me try to be more verbose: an opinion belongs to one person only. Even when two people agree on a subjective matter - there are still two opinion, one for each person. I can't zap my opinion into Johnny's brain; and even if I can, the moment a thought is zapped into his brain, it would be his thought and no longer mine. As such only one opinion matters in each and every appraisal. Sometimes the opinion that matters is mine, other times it's Johnny's, but each time, only one opinion is applicable.

If you were only considering your moral opinions on issues, how can you conclude that your opinion is one among many opinions, with none of them being objectively true.

The same reason you only consider your music taste on music, yet acknowledge that your opinion is one among many opinion, and someone isn't incorrect where they like country music best. How does my distaste for rap music factor into how much you enjoy rap?

In the context of various opinions (which is the context for saying opinion is all there is), your opinion is an objective fact of reality (even though that objective feature is talking about your subjective opinion).

The same could be said for music, you have in fact said as much in the following sentence. That doesn't render music an objective matter, (and it doesn't) so why would music taste be any different?

It is an objective feature of reality that you have specific tastes that rap music does not tingle. You can't just choose to change your mind.

Same as above. Music is just as subjective as music taste.

My personal preference in music is an objective feature of reality. It's true for everyone that I think folk music is good. My personal opinion on the shape of the earth is an objective feature of reality. It's true for everyone that I think the earth is a ball.

Ah huh, aren't you undermining your own position here? You treat these two cases differently because one is subjective and the other objective, fair enough.

Yet you don't treat music taste like you do with music. There is nothing outside of people's opinion to judge music taste by, the same way there is nothing outside of people's opinion to judge music by (setting the question of objective feature of reality aside;) which is very much different from the shape of the Earth where there is something outside of people's opinion.

It's not true for everyone that folk music is good. That is not an objective feature of reality (whereas the shape of the earth is). Musical taste, therefore, is something that depends on the individual's subjective preferences (which are objective features of reality).

You say that but my personal preference in music taste is an objective feature of reality. It's true for everyone that I think people who like rap music has bad taste.

It's not true for everyone that people who like folk music have bad taste. That is not an objective feature of reality (whereas the shape of the earth is). Taste on musical taste, therefore, is something that depends on the individual's subjective preferences (which are objective features of reality).

There is still an inconsistency here.

While we are here, what if everyone agrees that folk music is good? Suddenly it's true for every that folk music is good and it is an objective feature of reality? Mere universal agreement can turn subjective opinion into objective fact?

Your subjective preference/appraisal that "differing musical tastes are just as good or valid as my own" is a subjective preference/appraisal in the same way "the earth is a ball" is your subjective preference/appraisal; it's your belief on the matter.

But, returning to what we already went round and round about, the importance is why that is your belief on the matter. At the objectivist/subjectivist proper level, the first preference is based on the fact that you think opinion is all there is

So far so good...

while you don't think that about the second. Your subjective preference/appraisal/belief on morality mirrors the second, not the first.

No, no, no, no, no! Sextuple no! I do think that about the second, the second preference is also based on the fact that you think opinion is all there is. My subjective preference/appraisal/belief on morality mirrors the first, not the second at all. I treat morality the same way I treat music, which is also the same way I treat music taste, which is decidedly different from how I treat the shape of the Earth.

If one thought opinion was all there was on this matter, then how could they say their opinion was objectively better or truer? They'd have nothing to objectively judge the opinions by.

Quite simply, one cannot say that. I don't.

You think Johnny should believe the earth is a ball, not because it is your opinion but because there is a truth outside of Johnny's mind.

What people should believe and what is true are fundamentally different questions. You are muddling the water by introducing "should believe" into the matter of the shape of the Earth. Suffice to say the opinion that the Earth is a ball, matches the objective reality of the shape of the ball, and there is more to the shape of the Earth than opinion.

I would think that you think Johnny should enjoy rap music because it matches his subjective taste/opinion on rap music, not because it matches your subjective taste/opinion on rap music.

No, I think Johnny should enjoy rap music because it is my opinion that he should.

In the same way I think Johnny should believe child abuse is wrong because it is my opinion that he should. Like I said, I treat morality the same way I treat music, the same way I treat music taste; all of which is different from how I treat the shape of the Earth.

And before you say anything about simple subjectivism, opinion is all there is to it, when it comes to morality, music and music taste.

[The Tanager]

I'm trying to simplify things instead of replying to every point. Obviously, if you think I've glossed over something needed or dodged a question, it was unintentional and I will answer it if you bring it back up.

You have tried to clarify what you are saying beyond simple subjectivism into subjectivism proper. It has been unclear to me. At times it seems like you say something that sounds like an objectivist position to me. At other times it seems like your explanation resorts back to the simple subjectivism level.

Here is an example of the latter:

But I'm not saying that. I'm not saying R is true full stop and not-R is true full stop. I'm saying that R is true for my son and R is false for Bust Nak.

Same as above: Why not say, your son holds the opinion R, while Bust Nak holds the opposite opinion? This is more than just semantics, as this is pretty much the basis of the "your opinion true for everyone/objective taste" line of questioning.

You say you are saying more than simple subjectivism, but there is no content to what more you are saying [in this phrase...there is content at other times, although I'm trying to pin down exactly what that content is].

Let's plug in the shape of the earth here. Why not say "Johnny holds the opinion not-Ball, while Bust Nak holds the opinion Ball"? All this sentence does is share the two opinions...simple subjectivism. It doesn't have any content about whether opinions are all there is, one opinion is true, etc.

But some of your posts have gone beyond that kind of phrase:

But if your (2) is addressing the same issue my (2) is and you are disagreeing with me, then that would mean that you think one thing is true/good for you and another thing is true/good for Johnny because my (2) is saying that there is one true/good thing for everyone.

That sounds about right, the term "same issue" threw me a bit. Clearly child abuse and the shape of the Earth is not the same issue. But I think I get you, my (2) is addressing objectivism vs subjectivism, just as your (2) is. Not sure what point you are trying to make though, if any.

Okay, then you seem to be to be saying that you are making these claims:

(1) Bust Nak's opinion is "child abuse is good" is wrong
(2) Bust Nak's opinion is (a) "Child abuse is good" is false/bad for Bust Nak and (b) "Child abuse is good" is true/good for Johnny

Help me grasp the difference in your thought here: that "child abuse is good" is wrong (from 1) when Johnny does it as well as true/good for Johnny (from 2b) when he does it.

Why fault Johnny for holding an opinion that you think is not incorrect?

The same reason you fault country music, despite it not being an incorrect kind of music - it does not match my taste.

I fault country music, but I don't fault the person who likes country music from enjoying country music. I fault flat earth theory and I fault the person who believes the flat earth theory for, say, teaching it as true. My opinion on subjective things gets one out of two faults; my opinion on objective things get both faults. Your moral opinion seems to have both faults (you fault child abuse as wrong and Johnny for believing it is okay).

Now, you'll want to rephrase that to something like: "I fault country music because of my taste against country music [which seems to be synonyms, like saying it's big because it's huge], while I don't fault the person who likes country music from enjoying country music because of my taste for letting people enjoy their musical tastes [again, synonyms]." These aren't explanations for your opinion, they are restatements that it is your opinion. Statements of one's opinion is simple subjectivism. So, in trying to explain what you mean beyond simple subjectivism, we are right back at simple subjectivism.

A subjectivist proper also says something beyond this about the various of opinions on the matter. Something beyond "their opinion is not my opinion" since that is a simple observational comment included within simple subjectivism.

Done on my behalf. In other words, I can only form opinions for myself, I cannot form opinions for Johnny. Johnny can only form opinion for himself, he cannot form opinions for me.

Of course. Objectivists don't think we are forming Johnny's opinion for him. That is a part of simple subjectivism.

Objectivists are further saying that Johnny's opinion is wrong in a way different than "disagrees with our opinion." Subjectivism proper disagrees with this claim. How is Johnny's opinion "wrong" to you in a way that is distinct from it simply not agreeing with your opinion?

If you were only considering your moral opinions on issues, how can you conclude that your opinion is one among many opinions, with none of them being objectively true.

The same reason you only consider your music taste on music, yet acknowledge that your opinion is one among many opinion, and someone isn't incorrect where they like country music best. How does my distaste for rap music factor into how much you enjoy rap?

No, I only consider my music taste on music when addressing the simple subjectivism piece of aesthetics. I consider everyone's music taste on music when addressing the subjectivism proper piece of aesthetics. Your distaste for rap music doesn't factor into my subjective taste, it factors into my subjectivism proper claim about what kind of thing music taste is for humans.

In the context of various opinions (which is the context for saying opinion is all there is), your opinion is an objective fact of reality (even though that objective feature is talking about your subjective opinion).

The same could be said for music, you have in fact said as much in the following sentence. That doesn't render music an objective matter, (and it doesn't) so why would music taste be any different?

My point that branched these thoughts was that you seem at times to judge everyone else by your subjective taste in morality. This is different than the sense that we all have our opinion and no one else's opinion (that is trivially true and part of simple subjectivism).

If you are saying something beyond simple subjectivism, then you seem to say that Johnny's opinion is wrong (in a way that doesn't just mean "different than me") because you dislike child abuse. If you think there is the same truth for everyone (when people have different opinions on the matter), then this looks like objectivism. Subjectivism says there is no one truth for all people being appraised by the appraiser.

I would think that you think Johnny should enjoy rap music because it matches his subjective taste/opinion on rap music, not because it matches your subjective taste/opinion on rap music.

No, I think Johnny should enjoy rap music because it is my opinion that he should.

In the same way I think Johnny should believe child abuse is wrong because it is my opinion that he should. Like I said, I treat morality the same way I treat music, the same way I treat music taste; all of which is different from how I treat the shape of the Earth.

How is this different then simple subjectivism or making a tautological claim that "what I think is my opinion"?

And before you say anything about simple subjectivism, opinion is all there is to it, when it comes to morality, music and music taste.

Then what does this mean beyond what you just said about "what I think is my opinion"? You've made attempts to explain this in various ways but it's still not clear to me.

[Bust Nak]

You have tried to clarify what you are saying beyond simple subjectivism into subjectivism proper. It has been unclear to me. At times it seems like you say something that sounds like an objectivist position to me. At other times it seems like your explanation resorts back to the simple subjectivism level.

Here is an example of the latter:

Why not say, your son holds the opinion R, while Bust Nak holds the opposite opinion? This is more than just semantics, as this is pretty much the basis of the "your opinion true for everyone/objective taste" line of questioning.

You say you are saying more than simple subjectivism, but there is no content to what more you are saying [in this phrase...there is content at other times, although I'm trying to pin down exactly what that content is].

Let's plug in the shape of the earth here. Why not say "Johnny holds the opinion not-Ball, while Bust Nak holds the opinion Ball"? All this sentence does is share the two opinions...simple subjectivism. It doesn't have any content about whether opinions are all there is, one opinion is true, etc.

It doesn't have that content explicitly because it is redundant. The extra content is implicit: Music taste is all there is to it, there is more to opinion when it comes to the shape of the Earth, since we are both subjectivists when it comes to music, and we are both objectivists when it comes to the shape of the world. I go beyond that to be explicit where you question me as to whether I meant it with or without that extra content.

The answer is "always with extra content" by the way. I am not agnostic as to subjectivism vs objectivism on any matter, there is always an implicit "opinion is all there is to it" or "there is something beyond opinion" attached to it, depending on whether I think that matter at hand is subjective or objective.

Okay, then you seem to be to be saying that you are making these claims:

(1) Bust Nak's opinion is "child abuse is good" is wrong
(2) Bust Nak's opinion is (a) "Child abuse is good" is false/bad for Bust Nak and (b) "Child abuse is good" is true/good for Johnny

Help me grasp the difference in your thought here: that "child abuse is good" is wrong (from 1) when Johnny does it as well as true/good for Johnny (from 2b) when he does it.

Eh, (2b) doesn't look like what I was saying at all. I said Johnny has his own opinion. (2b) is supposed to be Johnny's opinion. It's confusing because of the wording you used:

a) As I keep saying, there is no true or false when it comes to opinion. "Johnny's opinion is 'child abuse is good' is true" is a lousy way of saying Johnny holds the opinion is "child abuse is good."

b) The word "wrong" because it is ambiguous given the topic of morality. It could mean "immoral" or it could mean "incorrect."

c) The term "for Johnny" because it is ambiguous given the topic of opinion. "child abuse is good for Johnny" could mean "Johnny holds that opinion child abuse is good" or "the speaker holds the opinion that child abuse is good when Johnny is the one doing it."

I fault country music, but I don't fault the person who likes country music from enjoying country music.

Okay, but whether you fault the person who likes country music from enjoying country music or not, does not change your understanding on how someone can fault something despite that something not being incorrect, right? Apply that understanding here, do you understand why I fault Johnny for holding an opinion that I think is not incorrect now?

I fault flat earth theory and I fault the person who believes the flat earth theory for, say, teaching it as true. My opinion on subjective things gets one out of two faults; my opinion on objective things get both faults. Your moral opinion seems to have both faults (you fault child abuse as wrong and Johnny for believing it is okay).

Right, what of it? My opinion on subjective things gets get both faults. You hold a different opinion. I fault Johnny for holding an opinion that I think is not incorrect because it is not to my taste, the same way I fault rap music for being a kind of music that I think is not incorrect because it is not to my taste.

Now, you'll want to rephrase that to something like: "I fault country music because of my taste against country music [which seems to be synonyms, like saying it's big because it's huge], while I don't fault the person who likes country music from enjoying country music because of my taste for letting people enjoy their musical tastes [again, synonyms]." These aren't explanations for your opinion, they are restatements that it is your opinion.

That's the whole point of "opinion is all there is to it." We've been through this before extensively: while you can add in justification for why you don't like country music due to its lack of variety, you are just rising the question of why don't you like a lack of variety. There is no real explanation beyond I like it and I don't like it when it comes to taste, you accepted that much right?

Statements of one's opinion is simple subjectivism. So, in trying to explain what you mean beyond simple subjectivism, we are right back at simple subjectivism.

A subjectivist proper also says something beyond this about the various of opinions on the matter. Something beyond "their opinion is not my opinion" since that is a simple observational comment included within simple subjectivism.

You are still missing the all important "opinion is all there is to it."

Simple subjectivism: "my opinion is mine, their opinion is not my opinion."
Simple subjectivism plus subjectivism proper: "my opinion is mine, their opinion is not my opinion. Opinion is all there is to it."
Simple subjectivism plus subjectivism proper: "my opinion is mine, their opinion is not my opinion. There is something beyond opinion."

Of course. Objectivists don't think we are forming Johnny's opinion for him. That is a part of simple subjectivism.

Objectivists are further saying that Johnny's opinion is wrong in a way different than "disagrees with our opinion." Subjectivism proper disagrees with this claim. How is Johnny's opinion "wrong" to you in a way that is distinct from it simply not agreeing with your opinion?

It's distinct because of this extra content: Johnny is not incorrect for not agreeing with my opinion, because opinion is all there is to it.

No, I only consider my music taste on music when addressing the simple subjectivism piece of aesthetics. I consider everyone's music taste on music when addressing the subjectivism proper piece of aesthetics.

But you said music is subjective before. You meant simply subjectivism when you said that?

Your distaste for rap music doesn't factor into my subjective taste, it factors into my subjectivism proper claim about what kind of thing music taste is for humans.

That does not ring true: You've came the conclude that music taste is subjective, long before you ever heard my opinion on rap music. You've since heard that I dislike rap music, and your conclusion stayed the same. Now suppose I do like rap music, would your conclusion change as to the subjective nature of music taste? Suppose rap music is liked universally by absolutely everyone, would your conclusion change? Now suppose rap music is hated universally by absolutely everyone, would your conclusion change? I am gonna assume your answer would be no to all these questions. It's quite clear to me that my music taste does not (nor does anyone's music taste) factor your subjectivism proper claim about what kind of thing music taste is. All you know is that we all have music taste, which cannot be a deciding factor since the same can be said for the shape of the Earth, we all have opinion as to what shape it is.

My point that branched these thoughts was that you seem at times to judge everyone else by your subjective taste in morality. This is different than the sense that we all have our opinion and no one else's opinion (that is trivially true and part of simple subjectivism).

If you are saying something beyond simple subjectivism, then you seem to say that Johnny's opinion is wrong (in a way that doesn't just mean "different than me") because you dislike child abuse. If you think there is the same truth for everyone (when people have different opinions on the matter), then this looks like objectivism. Subjectivism says there is no one truth for all people being appraised by the appraiser.

That's why I keep telling you, Johnny is wrong in the sense that mean "different than me" but he is not wrong in the sense that he is incorrect.

How is this different then simple subjectivism or making a tautological claim that "what I think is my opinion"?

Same as above, it's different due to the extra content, opinion is all there is to it.

Then what does this mean beyond what you just said about "what I think is my opinion"? You've made attempts to explain this in various ways but it's still not clear to me.

I just told you explicitly what it means beyond "what I think is my opinion," in the very sentence you quoted - "opinion is all there is to it."

Surely you are not suggesting it's not clear what the difference is between "what I think is my opinion" and "opinion is all there is to it?"

[The Tanager]

Okay, but whether you fault the person who likes country music from enjoying country music or not, does not change your understanding on how someone can fault something despite that something not being incorrect, right? Apply that understanding here, do you understand why I fault Johnny for holding an opinion that I think is not incorrect now?

I don't understand what you mean by "fault" here.

I fault Johnny for holding an opinion that I think is not incorrect because it is not to my taste, the same way I fault rap music for being a kind of music that I think is not incorrect because it is not to my taste.

This sounds like "fault" means "disagrees with my opinion/taste". This "fault" is simple subjectivism. We need to stop going back to this level.

It's distinct because of this extra content: Johnny is not incorrect for not agreeing with my opinion, because opinion is all there is to it.

But how do you act on this belief? How do you incorporate this belief into your actions towards Johnny? I would act differently towards a little child who rips a beloved photo of mine then I would an adult. That's because I would take into account different information. If I said "I believe the child couldn't know what she was doing" but didn't take that into account, I don't really believe it in any meaningful sense. I would act differently in a lot of ways if I didn't think God existed. My personal opinions would change on some subjects. If I said "God doesn't exist" but still acted as though God existed, then I don't really believe that "God doesn't exist" in any meaningful sense.

So, how does your belief that "opinion is all there is" affect how you interact with others who hold different opinions than you?

No, I only consider my music taste on music when addressing the simple subjectivism piece of aesthetics. I consider everyone's music taste on music when addressing the subjectivism proper piece of aesthetics.

But you said music is subjective before. You meant simply subjectivism when you said that?

No, I meant that, seeing musical taste is dependent on each individual, I cannot say there is one truth for everyone about whether rap music is good or not. Incorporating that belief into my thoughts, I don't dislike it when people choose to listen to music I personally dislike because different music is good to them. If I thought that rap music was the only good music, then I would not want people to listen to other kinds of music. I would fault (in the sense different than "different than my opinion") the person who listens to other kinds of music.

Your distaste for rap music doesn't factor into my subjective taste, it factors into my subjectivism proper claim about what kind of thing music taste is for humans.

That does not ring true: You've came the conclude that music taste is subjective, long before you ever heard my opinion on rap music.

I included you in the sense of noticing that there are different tastes out there that make people happy. It's not dependent on any one particular person.

[Bust Nak]

I don't understand what you mean by "fault" here.

The same way you mean when faulting country music as bad.

This sounds like "fault" means "disagrees with my opinion/taste".

Of course it is, what else could it possibly be given that we are dealing with a subjective matter?

This "fault" is simple subjectivism. We need to stop going back to this level.

We? You need to stop going back to that level. I've always been on subjectivism proper. You keep forgetting about the extra content that gets tagged on.

But how do you act on this belief? How do you incorporate this belief into your actions towards Johnny?

The same way you act on the belief that opinion is all there is to music.

I would act differently towards a little child who rips a beloved photo of mine then I would an adult. That's because I would take into account different information. If I said "I believe the child couldn't know what she was doing" but didn't take that into account, I don't really believe it in any meaningful sense. I would act differently in a lot of ways if I didn't think God existed. My personal opinions would change on some subjects. If I said "God doesn't exist" but still acted as though God existed, then I don't really believe that "God doesn't exist" in any meaningful sense.

Borrowing you wordings, this is how I incorporate subjectivism proper into my actions: seeing moral taste is dependent on each individual, I cannot say there is one truth for everyone about whether child abuse is good or not. Incorporating that belief into my thoughts, I dislike it when people choose to abuse children regardless of whether child abuse is good to them. If I thought that refraining from child abuse was the true way to behave, then I would fault (in the sense different than "different than my opinion") the person who abuse children.

No, I meant that, seeing musical taste is dependent on each individual, I cannot say there is one truth for everyone about whether rap music is good or not. Incorporating that belief into my thoughts, I don't dislike it when people choose to listen to music I personally dislike because different music is good to them. If I thought that rap music was the only good music, then I would not want people to listen to other kinds of music. I would fault (in the sense different than "different than my opinion") the person who listens to other kinds of music.

So why did you say that when only consider your music taste on music when addressing the simple subjectivism piece of aesthetics, when you are a proper music subjectivist? Your belief that music is simply a matter of taste gets turn on and off on the fly? You pop in and out of simple subjectivism even when the matter remains the same?

I included you in the sense of noticing that there are different tastes out there that make people happy. It's not dependent on any one particular person.

What if there is no different tastes out there that make people happy? Music suddenly flip from subjective to objective if we universally like the same music?

[The Tanager]

Borrowing you wordings, this is how I incorporate subjectivism proper into my actions: seeing moral taste is dependent on each individual, I cannot say there is one truth for everyone about whether child abuse is good or not. Incorporating that belief into my thoughts, I dislike it when people choose to abuse children regardless of whether child abuse is good to them. If I thought that refraining from child abuse was the true way to behave, then I would fault (in the sense different than "different than my opinion") the person who abuse children.

Now the parallel with something else that you think is subjective: music taste. Seeing music taste is dependent on each individual, you cannot say there is one truth for everyone about whether rap music is good or not. Incorporating that belief into your thoughts, you dislike it when people choose to listen to rap music regardless of whether rap music is good to them.

Something seems off from that and the other ways you have talked about this. For you have said you like it when people choose to listen to rap music if it is good to them.

So why did you say that when only consider your music taste on music when addressing the simple subjectivism piece of aesthetics, when you are a proper music subjectivist? Your belief that music is simply a matter of taste gets turn on and off on the fly? You pop in and out of simple subjectivism even when the matter remains the same?

Maybe another way to get at it. Combining the different aspects into one statement, concerning music, I would say that: "(a) I think it's fine to listen to jazz music if one wants to but (b) I personally don't want to." That covers both pieces: my opinion, (b), and my judgment on opinion being all there is to musical tastes, (a).

In saying (a), I've focused on the content and judged that there is no one standard I should use to judge the various views by. Notice that this "judging" in (a) is not about what I would personally do but about the issue more generally. Seeing that "opinion is all there is" means I conclude that every statement is as valid as the other (this is not an if-then statement, but saying the same thing in two different ways). Thus, I judge listening to folk music as just as good as listening to jazz music. Yes, I personally choose to listen to folk music, but that is not a part of (a). That is a different judgment.

In the same way, if morality is subjective, then one should say something like: "(c) I think it's fine to abuse a child if one wants to but (d) I personally don't want to." From our talk, I think you disagree with this. It seems to me that you don't think it's fine to abuse a child at all, even by those who want to.

What if there is no different tastes out there that make people happy? Music suddenly flip from subjective to objective if we universally like the same music?

I don't think mere agreement makes something objectively true. Objectivism v. subjectivism proper is not about what opinions people actually have but about what makes a statement true. If truth is dependent on each individual's subjective tastes/opinions, then we have subjectivism.

[Bust Nak]

Now the parallel with something else that you think is subjective: music taste. Seeing music taste is dependent on each individual, you cannot say there is one truth for everyone about whether rap music is good or not. Incorporating that belief into your thoughts, you dislike it when people choose to listen to rap music regardless of whether rap music is good to them.

Something seems off from that and the other ways you have talked about this. For you have said you like it when people choose to listen to rap music if it is good to them.

The idea is correct, you just got my preference backwards: Seeing music taste is dependent on each individual, I cannot say there is one truth for everyone about whether rap music is good or not. Incorporating that belief into my thoughts, I do not dislike it when people choose to listen to rap music regardless of whether rap music is good to them.

Maybe another way to get at it. Combining the different aspects into one statement, concerning music, I would say that: "(a) I think it's fine to listen to jazz music if one wants to but (b) I personally don't want to." That covers both pieces: my opinion, (b), and my judgment on opinion being all there is to musical tastes, (a).

In saying (a), I've focused on the content and judged that there is no one standard I should use to judge the various views by. Notice that this "judging" in (a) is not about what I would personally do but about the issue more generally. Seeing that "opinion is all there is" means I conclude that every statement is as valid as the other (this is not an if-then statement, but saying the same thing in two different ways). Thus, I judge listening to folk music as just as good as listening to jazz music. Yes, I personally choose to listen to folk music, but that is not a part of (a). That is a different judgment.

So far so good, I treat morality the same way.

In the same way, if morality is subjective, then one should say something like: "(c) I think it's fine to abuse a child if one wants to but (d) I personally don't want to." From our talk, I think you disagree with this. It seems to me that you don't think it's fine to abuse a child at all, even by those who want to.

That's right, I disagree. Why should it be that and not: Combining the different aspects into one statement, concerning morality, I would say that: "(c) I think it's not fine to abuse children even if one wants to and (d) I personally don't want to." That covers both pieces: my opinion, (d), and my judgment on opinion being all there is to morality, (c).

In saying (c), I've focused on the content and judged that there is no one standard I should use to judge the various views by. Notice that this "judging" in (c) is not about what I would personally do but about the issue more generally. Seeing that "opinion is all there is" means I conclude that every statement is as valid as the other (this is not an if-then statement, but saying the same thing in two different ways). Thus, I judge child abuse as worse than not abusing children. Yes, I personally choose to not abuse any children, but that is not a part of (c). That is a different judgment.

And before you ask, all four judgments above (a to d) are the same sort of things as faulting bad music - whether it agrees with my opinion/taste or not. I really don't get why you insist that just because two things being equally valid, I have to like them equally. You like it equally, okay, but that's your preference, why must I share the same preference?

While we are here, I don't think your response actually answers my question re: turning on and off subjectivism proper. In the space of this one sentence: "I think it's fine to listen to jazz music if one wants to but I personally don't want to." You've switch from a music subjectivist proper to a simple subjectivist? What happens to the belief that music is subjective while you think about what music you personally want to listen to?

I don't think mere agreement makes something objectively true.

But you seemed to be saying mere disagreement makes something subjective. You said that the fact that there are different tastes out there that make people happy, factored into your conclusion that music is subjective.

Objectivism v. subjectivism proper is not about what opinions people actually have but about what makes a statement true. If truth is dependent on each individual's subjective tastes/opinions, then we have subjectivism.

Right, so why would my taste in music be a factor in the objectivism v. subjectivism proper decision?

[The Tanager]

The idea is correct, you just got my preference backwards: Seeing music taste is dependent on each individual, I cannot say there is one truth for everyone about whether rap music is good or not. Incorporating that belief into my thoughts, I do not dislike it when people choose to listen to rap music regardless of whether rap music is good to them.

That was the point of drawing that parallel. Seeing that "opinion is all there is" in morality leads you to conclude something like: "I dislike it when people choose to follow their opinion". While seeing that "opinion is all there is" in music taste leads you to conclude something like: "I like it when people choose to follow their opinion." You are reacting in different ways to the same observation/belief. In one of those you aren't actually incorporating your observation that "opinion is all there is".

That's right, I disagree. Why should it be that and not: Combining the different aspects into one statement, concerning morality, I would say that: "(c) I think it's not fine to abuse children even if one wants to and (d) I personally don't want to." That covers both pieces: my opinion, (d), and my judgment on opinion being all there is to morality, (c).

Because I don't think your judgment on "opinion is all there is" is consistent with the idea that "opinion is all there is." I'm saying that idea means "I'm fine with someone doing X if they want to." That's what it means for you when talking about music taste, food taste, all kinds of other tastes. You change it when talking about moral taste to "I'm not fine with someone doing X if they want to."

In saying (c), I've focused on the content and judged that there is no one standard I should use to judge the various views by. Notice that this "judging" in (c) is not about what I would personally do but about the issue more generally. Seeing that "opinion is all there is" means I conclude that every statement is as valid as the other (this is not an if-then statement, but saying the same thing in two different ways). Thus, I judge child abuse as worse than not abusing children. Yes, I personally choose to not abuse any children, but that is not a part of (c). That is a different judgment.

Saying "opinion is all there is" leads to nothing being worse or better because there is no truth to make such a judgment. To make the judgment that child abuse is worse than not abusing children is bringing a standard to judge the various views by.

While we are here, I don't think your response actually answers my question re: turning on and off subjectivism proper. In the space of this one sentence: "I think it's fine to listen to jazz music if one wants to but I personally don't want to." You've switch from a music subjectivist proper to a simple subjectivist? What happens to the belief that music is subjective while you think about what music you personally want to listen to?

They address different issues. If that's what you mean by "turning on and off," then that is what we should do.

But you seemed to be saying mere disagreement makes something subjective. You said that the fact that there are different tastes out there that make people happy, factored into your conclusion that music is subjective.

If you give me the phrase you got that impression from, then I'll be able to clarify it specifically. I do not think mere disagreement makes something subjective. Since the aesthetic value of music is subjective, people are made happy by different styles and, therefore, I'm fine with them listening to different styles of music. If I thought the aesthetic value of music was objective, then I would want people to listen to the objectively good music only, regardless of whether they thought other music would make them happy or not.

Objectivism v. subjectivism proper is not about what opinions people actually have but about what makes a statement true. If truth is dependent on each individual's subjective tastes/opinions, then we have subjectivism.

Right, so why would my taste in music be a factor in the objectivism v. subjectivism proper decision?

I don't think your taste as your taste is a factor in it. It seems to me like you have said that your taste is the only factor for you.