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 I changed my claim after I finally understood what you meant by simple subjectivism v. subjectivism proper after you affirmed that one can switch between the two on the fly: It is simple subjectivism and not a judgment at the objectivism v. subjectivism proper level.

I missed that you changed that you were only talking at the simple subjectivism level. I thought you were still talking at both.

Ultimately I think we are disagreeing on terms. If you judge Johnny by your preference (at the objectivism/subjectivism proper level), then you are judging Johnny by something that exists independent of his mind: your mind. That's objectivism to me.

Okay, but do you acknowledge that is subjectivism to academia?

Terms are used in varied ways in academia, subjectivism and objectivism included.

[Bust Nak]

I missed that you changed that you were only talking at the simple subjectivism level. I thought you were still talking at both.

I still am? I am trying very hard to phrase things in a way that matches your stance with regards to judging music and judging music taste. Are you not talking at both when you say a) there is only one standard to judge music by, and b) there isn't one objective standard to judge music taste by? That sounded like both to me.

Terms are used in varied ways in academia, subjectivism and objectivism included.

Well it's not very common, where it is referred to that way, it's qualified explicitly with agent subjectivism.

[The Tanager]

I still am? I am trying very hard to phrase things in a way that matches your stance with regards to judging music and judging music taste. Are you not talking at both when you say a) there is only one standard to judge music by, and b) there isn't one objective standard to judge music taste by? That sounded like both to me.

If I understand your phrasing, then (a) is about simple subjectivism. At that level, the "standard" (although that doesn't seem the best term to use) of each person's preference is their own personal preference. This is trivial. What I like/prefer is what I like/prefer. I see no reason to continue talking about this level unless my meaning is unclear.

And (b) is about objectivism vs. non-objectivism/subjectivism. When considering the reality that everyone lives in, there is no objective fact of aesthetic value. There is no best music for all. There is no one standard to judge everyone by.

Well it's not very common, where it is referred to that way, it's qualified explicitly with agent subjectivism.

As I've said before, I'll use whatever terms you want. I won't contest which is more common in academia. You ascribe to appraiser subjectivism/relativism. For you, is this at the simple subjectivism level or the objectivism/non-objectivism level?

[Bust Nak]

If I understand your phrasing, then (a) is about simple subjectivism. At that level, the "standard" (although that doesn't seem the best term to use) of each person's preference is their own personal preference. This is trivial. What I like/prefer is what I like/prefer. I see no reason to continue talking about this level unless my meaning is unclear.

Is it really that trivial? I spent an awful amount of time explaining this is how I treat morality and you were having a hard time accepting that.

And (b) is about objectivism vs. non-objectivism/subjectivism. When considering the reality that everyone lives in, there is no objective fact of aesthetic value. There is no best music for all. There is no one standard to judge everyone by.

Right, and the same goes for morality. So I am talking simple subjectivism with (a), and about objectivism vs. non-objectivism/subjectivism with (b).

As I've said before, I'll use whatever terms you want. I won't contest which is more common in academia. You ascribe to appraiser subjectivism/relativism. For you, is this at the simple subjectivism level or the objectivism/non-objectivism level?

You ascribe to appraiser subjectivism/relativism when it comes to music. Is that at the simple subjectivism level or the objectivism/non-objectivism level? I am making both claims (a) and (b) above. I think it's both.

[The Tanager]

Is it really that trivial? I spent an awful amount of time explaining this is how I treat morality and you were having a hard time accepting that.

I did not have a hard time accepting that. From the beginning I distinguished simple subjectivism from the objectivism debate and you kept saying that you were saying something extra than just simple subjectivism. The extra part holds the confusion.

You ascribe to appraiser subjectivism/relativism when it comes to music. Is that at the simple subjectivism level or the objectivism/non-objectivism level? I am making both claims (a) and (b) above. I think it's both.

We must still understand different things by these terms. To me, appraiser subjectivism, at the simple subjectivism level, would be a useless term. Actually, it would be less than useless since it would cause confusion at other levels. At the simple subjectivism level, the only logical possibility is for someone to like what they like. Any judgment the appraiser makes must be their own judgment, based on their own beliefs, feelings, preferences, etc. Even if they are agreeing with someone else because they see them as an authority. What other logical option is there at this level?

When it comes to the objectivism/non-objectivism level, I am not an appraiser subjectivist in regards to music. I am an agent subjectivist. I make aesthetic judgments (like what I think Johnny should listen to) based on the aesthetic preferences of the agent in that situation.

[Bust Nak]

I did not have a hard time accepting that. From the beginning I distinguished simple subjectivism from the objectivism debate and you kept saying that you were saying something extra than just simple subjectivism. The extra part holds the confusion.

Ok, don't think of it as an extra, but switching from simple subjectivism to subjectivism proper.

We must still understand different things by these terms. To me, appraiser subjectivism, at the simple subjectivism level, would be a useless term. Actually, it would be less than useless since it would cause confusion at other levels. At the simple subjectivism level, the only logical possibility is for someone to like what they like. Any judgment the appraiser makes must be their own judgment, based on their own beliefs, feelings, preferences, etc. Even if they are agreeing with someone else because they see them as an authority. What other logical option is there at this level?

There are no alternatives.

When it comes to the objectivism/non-objectivism level, I am not an appraiser subjectivist in regards to music. I am an agent subjectivist. I make aesthetic judgments (like what I think Johnny should listen to) based on the aesthetic preferences of the agent in that situation.

Here you are judging Johnny's music taste, I was talking about music itself, as in what music you like. With the music you like, you are a appraiser subjectivist. Is that at the simple subjectivism level or the objectivism/non-objectivism level?

[The Tanager]

I did not have a hard time accepting that. From the beginning I distinguished simple subjectivism from the objectivism debate and you kept saying that you were saying something extra than just simple subjectivism. The extra part holds the confusion.

Ok, don't think of it as an extra, but switching from simple subjectivism to subjectivism proper.

That's what I mean by the 'extra' language. Noting that we agree there are these two levels and agree at the simple subjectivism level, in order to help clarify my confusion on what you are saying at the "subjectivism proper" level, can we not switch back to the simple subjectivism level any more?

When it comes to the objectivism/non-objectivism level, I am not an appraiser subjectivist in regards to music. I am an agent subjectivist. I make aesthetic judgments (like what I think Johnny should listen to) based on the aesthetic preferences of the agent in that situation.

Here you are judging Johnny's music taste, I was talking about music itself, as in what music you like. With the music you like, you are a appraiser subjectivist. Is that at the simple subjectivism level or the objectivism/non-objectivism level?

That is at the simple subjectivism level. What claim do you make at the objectivism/non-objectivism level?

[Bust Nak]

That's what I mean by the 'extra' language. Noting that we agree there are these two levels and agree at the simple subjectivism level, in order to help clarify my confusion on what you are saying at the "subjectivism proper" level, can we not switch back to the simple subjectivism level any more?

I'll try, but isn't your contention that there is a inconsistency with my simple subjectivism and my subjectivism proper claims?

That is at the simple subjectivism level. What claim do you make at the objectivism/non-objectivism level?

Opinion is all there is to it: there is no one objective standard to judge music, music taste, or morality on; there are as many standards as there are people judging music, music taste and morality.

[The Tanager]

I'll try, but isn't your contention that there is a inconsistency with my simple subjectivism and my subjectivism proper claims?

My understanding, as of now, has been that you claim to be making a subjectivism proper claim, but that, when analyzed, this claim turns out to be at the simple subjectivism level.

That is at the simple subjectivism level. What claim do you make at the objectivism/non-objectivism level?

Opinion is all there is to it: there is no one objective standard to judge music, music taste, or morality on; there are as many standards as there are people judging music, music taste and morality.

When Johnny says something like: "I should listen to rap music because I like that style" what is/are your claim(s) about this? I think the following things:

At the simple subjectivism level, I at least think the following:

1a. Johnny likes the style of country music.
2a. I don't like the style of country music.
3a. My preference is different then Johnny's preference regarding country music.
4a. I prefer freedom of choice for individuals concerning what music they listen to.

What kinds of claims are these? This is the objectivism/non-objectivism level.

1b/2b/3b. I don't think opinion is all there is to these. Susie may think Johnny and/or I are lying, but there is a truth of the matter.

4b. I do think opinion is all there is to this one. That is why I prefer freedom of choice on musical style. That belief informs my action/preference. If aesthetic value is subjective (i.e., opinion is all there is), then my personal preference of musical style has nothing to do with Johnny and should not enter into my judgment of his choice of what music to listen to. (Ignoring, for simplicity's sake, his possible choice to not listen to it because I'm with him). My judgment of Johnny's action to listen to country music is based on his subjective preference/opinion.

To judge Johnny's action by my preference(1) (freedom of choice) is at the simple subjectivism level. To judge Johnny's action at the objectivism/non-objectivism level, I must take into account that no preference(2) (on what musical style is good) is right for all, not even my own.

[Bust Nak]

My understanding, as of now, has been that you claim to be making a subjectivism proper claim, but that, when analyzed, this claim turns out to be at the simple subjectivism level.

The claim "both aesthetic value and morality are subjective" is as subjective proper as it can get. The statement said nothing of my personal preference after all. Analyse it all you like, how is this at the simple subjectivism level?

When Johnny says something like: "I should listen to rap music because I like that style" what is/are your claim(s) about this? I think the following things:

At the simple subjectivism level, I at least think the following:

1a. Johnny likes the style of country music.
2a. I don't like the style of country music.
3a. My preference is different then Johnny's preference regarding country music.
4a. I prefer freedom of choice for individuals concerning what music they listen to.

These are all fine, I make the same claims, at the simple subjectivism level.

What kinds of claims are these?

They are statement about the preference of individuals.

This is the objectivism/non-objectivism level.

1b/2b/3b. I don't think opinion is all there is to these. Susie may think Johnny and/or I are lying, but there is a truth of the matter.

Okay, these are statements about the truth value of 1a/2a/3a. I make the same claims. I don't think these are at all relevant to the subjectivism vs objectivism debate, they are for cognitivism vs non-cognitivism.

4b. I do think opinion is all there is to this one.

What makes this different from 1b/2b/3b? Susie may think you are lying about preferring freedom of choice with regards to music. There is a truth of the matter - the statement "The Tanager prefers freedom of choice for individuals concerning what music they listen to" is either true or false.

That is why I prefer freedom of choice on musical style. That belief informs my action/preference. If aesthetic value is subjective (i.e., opinion is all there is), then my personal preference of musical style has nothing to do with Johnny and should not enter into my judgment of his choice of what music to listen to. (Ignoring, for simplicity's sake, his possible choice to not listen to it because I'm with him). My judgment of Johnny's action to listen to country music is based on his subjective preference/opinion.

To judge Johnny's action by my preference(1) (freedom of choice) is at the simple subjectivism level. To judge Johnny's action at the objectivism/non-objectivism level, I must take into account that no preference(2) (on what musical style is good) is right for all, not even my own.

Still not seeing how the premise "there is no preference on what music is right for all" would play a part when judging Johnny's action. How do you go from the premise "aesthetic value is subjective (i.e., opinion is all there is)" to the conclusion "my personal preference of musical style has nothing to do with Johnny and should not enter into my judgment of his choice of what music to listen to?" Last time I challenged you on that, you said it was more a definition rather than an argument. It seems to me your accusation of inconsistency is build upon this definition. Well, I don't operate under that definition.