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]

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?

I'm saying that when you further explain what you mean by that claim, your explanation seems to revert back to the simple subjectivism level, like: "I judge by my personal preference." [Not an actual quote of you, but what kind of thing you've seemed to say].

They are statement about the preference of individuals.

Yes, but I'm talking about what kind of statement-of-preference is being made.

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.

(1b) could be assessed in at least three different ways. Is Johnny making a truth-apt statement (cog vs. non-cog)? Is Johnny telling the truth (simple subjectivism)? But the third, and the one I'm focusing on, is whether Johnny is making an objective or non-objective claim. Johnny is claiming that it is true for everyone that he likes country music. It doesn't matter that Susie thinks he is lying (simple subjectivism). It is true for her that Johnny really does like country music.

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.

I am making a truth-apt statement (cognitivism). This is my actual view (simple subjectivism). But the point I want to focus on is that I'm saying aesthetic value is not one size fits all. I'm talking about that aspect of the statement/preference, not that it is just 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.

What is your definition, then? Either your preference of musical style comes into play when judging another's choice of musical style or it doesn't. Our preference of earth-shape comes into play when judging a flat-earther's preference/opinion of earth-shape, because there is an objective fact that our preference is built upon.

[Bust Nak]

I'm saying that when you further explain what you mean by that claim, your explanation seems to revert back to the simple subjectivism level, like: "I judge by my personal preference." [Not an actual quote of you, but what kind of thing you've seemed to say].

It's not being offered as such though, it's an implication rather than an explanation, I am switching between subjectivist proper and simple subjectivist on the fly depending if I am making a judgment on objectivism vs subjectivism proper or not. You do the same with music: You said you judge what music you like by your subjective preferences in the same paragraph you stated that there is no one standard to judge the objective aesthetic value of music by.

(1b) could be assessed in at least three different ways. Is Johnny making a truth-apt statement (cog vs. non-cog)? Is Johnny telling the truth (simple subjectivism)? But the third, and the one I'm focusing on, is whether Johnny is making an objective or non-objective claim. Johnny is claiming that it is true for everyone that he likes country music.

It doesn't matter that Susie thinks he is lying (simple subjectivism). It is true for her that Johnny really does like country music.

Perhaps you should state explicit what 1b actually is (and add 1c/1d/1e for alternative interpretations.) I thought you only meant "Is Johnny telling the truth (simple subjectivism)" because you mentioned the possibility of Johnny lying.

I am making a truth-apt statement (cognitivism). This is my actual view (simple subjectivism). But the point I want to focus on is that I'm saying aesthetic value is not one size fits all. I'm talking about that aspect of the statement/preference, not that it is just my own.

Sure, no contest here.

What is your definition, then?

For me it takes the form of an argument, not something true by definition.

1) To judge someone's choice, a standard is required.
2) Aesthetic value/morality is subjective (i.e., opinion is all there is); there is no one objective standard to judge someone's choice by.
3) Without an objective standard to judge something as true or false, the only alternative is to judge it by what we like and dislike.
4) At the simple subjectivism level, the only logical possibility is for someone to like what they like.
5) Therefore my personal preference is the only standard that enter into my judgment of Johnny's choice of aesthetic value/morality.

[The Tanager]

It's not being offered as such though, it's an implication rather than an explanation, I am switching between subjectivist proper and simple subjectivist on the fly depending if I am making a judgment on objectivism vs subjectivism proper or not. You do the same with music:...

I talk about both levels separately in regards to music. What I see you doing is talk about simple subjectivism, then switch to subjectivism proper/non-objectivism (which is perfectly fine), but in your explanation of what you mean at the non-objective level saying simple subjectivism kinds of things. It's not that you talk about both levels, but that your levels sound identical.

When explaining subjectivism proper you have seemed to say something like: "I'm a non-objectivist because I judge by my personal preference." If you mean that "I judge Johnny's musical listening choice as good because I prefer people listening to music they like," then this is simple subjectivism. You have simple stated your preference in two different ways. I'm a non-objectivist in aesthetic value because it is my preference to judge others' musical listening choices by their personal preference of musical tastes.

You do the same with music: You said you judge what music you like by your subjective preferences in the same paragraph you stated that there is no one standard to judge the objective aesthetic value of music by.

Those are two different claims, each with an element of simple subjectivism and objectivism/non-objectivism. The former (that The Tanager likes folk music) is true for everyone (it's mind-independent, it's objective); the latter (folk music is good) has a different truth value for different people (it's mind-dependent, it's subjective).

Perhaps you should state explicit what 1b actually is (and add 1c/1d/1e for alternative interpretations.) I thought you only meant "Is Johnny telling the truth (simple subjectivism)" because you mentioned the possibility of Johnny lying.

1b. It is true for everyone that Johnny likes country music.

Perhaps it could be better phrased, but let's start there at least. This is a truth-apt statement (cognitivism), it is my actual view (simple subjectivism), but as a truth-apt statement, it is claiming to be true for everyone.

The alternative would be to say something like:

1b2. It is true for Johnny that Johnny likes country music but false for Timothy that Johnny likes country music.

Now, that seems obviously false to me. 4b is different, though.

4b. Aesthetic value is different for different people.

I'm sure that could be better phrased, but it's a start. For more explanation: It is good for Johnny to listen to country music because he likes the style. It is bad for me to listen to country music because I don't like that style. It will irritate me, put me in a bad mood, I'll be more likely to be mean to others, etc. [Country music doesn't really have that deep an affect on me, but for the sake of argument].

5a. I judge that people have different moral preferences.
5b. I judge that moral value (goodness/badness) is different for different people (all else being the same).

I'm sure these could be nuanced better as well, but it's a start. 5a is simple subjectivism. 5b is trying to say something different than 5a. It's not just that people's moral preferences are different, but that what is good/bad for each individual is different because of those different moral preferences. I see 5b as subjectivism proper/non-objectivism.

For me it takes the form of an argument, not something true by definition.

1) To judge someone's choice, a standard is required.
2) Aesthetic value/morality is subjective (i.e., opinion is all there is); there is no one objective standard to judge someone's choice by.
3) Without an objective standard to judge something as true or false, the only alternative is to judge it by what we like and dislike.
4) At the simple subjectivism level, the only logical possibility is for someone to like what they like.
5) Therefore my personal preference is the only standard that enter into my judgment of Johnny's choice of aesthetic value/morality.

I disagree with (3). We can judge it by what others like or dislike. We can judge Johnny's music listening choice by what he likes. Yes, that is because we prefer to do so, but that falls back into simple subjectivism. It's not a proper switch, but staying within non-objectivism with a simple subjectivism sounding answer. We've agreed that at simple subjectivism we can only judge by what we prefer to judge by. So, if you take (3) to be talking about "I prefer to allow Johnny musical freedom because I like allowing freedom in subjective areas of reality," then you aren't talking at the non-objectivism level. But (3) is attempting to make a claim at the non-objectivism level.

[Bust Nak]

I talk about both levels separately in regards to music. What I see you doing is talk about simple subjectivism, then switch to subjectivism proper/non-objectivism (which is perfectly fine), but in your explanation of what you mean at the non-objective level saying simple subjectivism kinds of things. It's not that you talk about both levels, but that your levels sound identical.

When explaining subjectivism proper you have seemed to say something like: "I'm a non-objectivist because I judge by my personal preference."

There is no "because" here as I am not giving it as an explanation, try this instead: I am a non-objectivist because I believe there is no one objective standard to judge music/morality by. As a non-objectivist, I judge music/morality by my personal preference. Had there been an objective standard to judge music/morality by, I would be using the objective standard; but there isn't one, so I judge by my preference instead. Judging by my preference is an implication of non-objectivism, not an explanation. Does that help?

Those are two different claims, each with an element of simple subjectivism and objectivism/non-objectivism. The former (that The Tanager likes folk music) is true for everyone (it's mind-independent, it's objective); the latter (folk music is good) has a different truth value for different people (it's mind-dependent, it's subjective).

Pretty much the same for me, with the caveat I mentioned before: given that music is subjective, "folk music is good" in isolation without an associated subject, is an incomplete statement; which means it has no truth value.

1b. It is true for everyone that Johnny likes country music.

Perhaps it could be better phrased, but let's start there at least. This is a truth-apt statement (cognitivism), it is my actual view (simple subjectivism), but as a truth-apt statement, it is claiming to be true for everyone.

The alternative would be to say something like:

1b2. It is true for Johnny that Johnny likes country music but false for Timothy that Johnny likes country music.

Now, that seems obviously false to me.

4b is different, though.

4b. Aesthetic value is different for different people.

I'm sure that could be better phrased, but it's a start. For more explanation: It is good for Johnny to listen to country music because he likes the style. It is bad for me to listen to country music because I don't like that style. It will irritate me, put me in a bad mood, I'll be more likely to be mean to others, etc. [Country music doesn't really have that deep an affect on me, but for the sake of argument].

These are all fine. I would make all these claims.

5a. I judge that people have different moral preferences.
5b. I judge that moral value (goodness/badness) is different for different people (all else being the same).

I'm sure these could be nuanced better as well, but it's a start. 5a is simple subjectivism. 5b is trying to say something different than 5a. It's not just that people's moral preferences are different, but that what is good/bad for each individual is different because of those different moral preferences. I see 5b as subjectivism proper/non-objectivism.

Yep, that's what I am saying, both 5a and 5b, switching from simple to subjectivism proper.

I disagree with (3). We can judge it by what others like or dislike. We can judge Johnny's music listening choice by what he likes.

That's fine, the "we" is all inclusive, even Johnny, swap the old 3) out with the following instead: 3) Without an objective standard to judge something as true or false, the only alternative is to judge it by personal likes and dislikes, the argument would still flows.

Yes, that is because we prefer to do so, but that falls back into simple subjectivism. It's not a proper switch, but staying within non-objectivism with a simple subjectivism sounding answer...

I don't understand what this last bit is about. Does this objection still apply given my new 3)?

[The Tanager]

I talk about both levels separately in regards to music. What I see you doing is talk about simple subjectivism, then switch to subjectivism proper/non-objectivism (which is perfectly fine), but in your explanation of what you mean at the non-objective level saying simple subjectivism kinds of things. It's not that you talk about both levels, but that your levels sound identical.

When explaining subjectivism proper you have seemed to say something like: "I'm a non-objectivist because I judge by my personal preference."

There is no "because" here as I am not giving it as an explanation, try this instead: I am a non-objectivist because I believe there is no one objective standard to judge music/morality by. As a non-objectivist, I judge music/morality by my personal preference. Had there been an objective standard to judge music/morality by, I would be using the objective standard; but there isn't one, so I judge by my preference instead. Judging by my preference is an implication of non-objectivism, not an explanation. Does that help?

That seems to provide further evidence for my point. Johnny prefers rap music. Your preferred musical style is classical music. As you said above, as a non-objectivist, you judge (on the issue I'm focusing on) Johnny's choice to listen to rap music by your personal preference. But that preference refers to your preference to allow people aesthetic freedom. You are just stating the same thing in two different ways. You judge Johnny's choice by your preference on how to judge Johnny's choice. That's simple subjectivism. Your description of subjectivism proper/non-objectivism is identical to simple subjectivism.

5a. I judge that people have different moral preferences.
5b. I judge that moral value (goodness/badness) is different for different people (all else being the same).

I'm sure these could be nuanced better as well, but it's a start. 5a is simple subjectivism. 5b is trying to say something different than 5a. It's not just that people's moral preferences are different, but that what is good/bad for each individual is different because of those different moral preferences. I see 5b as subjectivism proper/non-objectivism.

Yep, that's what I am saying, both 5a and 5b, switching from simple to subjectivism proper.

Regarding 5b, don't you think child abuse is bad/wrong for everyone? That child abuse is never good?

[Bust Nak]

That seems to provide further evidence for my point. Johnny prefers rap music. Your preferred musical style is classical music. As you said above, as a non-objectivist, you judge (on the issue I'm focusing on) Johnny's choice to listen to rap music by your personal preference. But that preference refers to your preference to allow people aesthetic freedom. You are just stating the same thing in two different ways. You judge Johnny's choice by your preference on how to judge Johnny's choice. That's simple subjectivism.

Yes it is.

Your description of subjectivism proper/non-objectivism is identical to simple subjectivism.

But I wasn't describing subjectivism proper/non-objectivism. Haven't we established that it's fine to switch on the fly? As a subjectivist proper, I am telling you about my simple subjectivism. As a subjectivist proper, this is me describing subjectivism proper/non-objectivism: There is no one objective standard for judging taste or morality; it's all a matter of opinion; one is not correct/incorrect for doing something that is deemed immoral by me; correctness does not apply on matters of opinion.

Regarding 5b, don't you think child abuse is bad/wrong for everyone? That child abuse is never good?

No, it's different for different people.

[The Tanager]

As a subjectivist proper, this is me describing subjectivism proper/non-objectivism: There is no one objective standard for judging taste or morality; it's all a matter of opinion; one is not correct/incorrect for doing something that is deemed immoral by me; correctness does not apply on matters of opinion.

But what follows from this? You are making a judgment on Johnny's action to abuse a child. You hate child abuse. Johnny likes child abuse. It's all a matter of opinion. Therefore, one can only judge by their own preference, right? Since you hate child abuse, you can only judge Johnny's abuse of a child as immoral?

No, it's different for different people.

In a way that goes beyond the mere existence of different moral preferences? You judge Johnny's act of child abuse as good, while also claiming that child abuse is bad?

[Bust Nak]

But what follows from this? You are making a judgment on Johnny's action to abuse a child. You hate child abuse. Johnny likes child abuse. It's all a matter of opinion. Therefore, one can only judge by their own preference, right? Since you hate child abuse, you can only judge Johnny's abuse of a child as immoral?

Close enough, but with this caveat: I hate abusing children, that's why I refrain from abusing children. I hate it when Johnny abuse children, that's why I judge Johnny's abuse of a child as immoral. There are two kinds of "hating child abuse" here, and they need not match - I could hate abusing children yet accept it as moral; or love abusing children yet reject it as immoral.

In a way that goes beyond the mere existence of different moral preferences? You judge Johnny's act of child abuse as good, while also claiming that child abuse is bad?

No, I judge and am claiming that Johnny's act of child abuse as bad only. I judge by my own preference. It does not go beyond the mere existence of different moral preference.

[The Tanager]

Close enough, but with this caveat: I hate abusing children, that's why I refrain from abusing children. I hate it when Johnny abuse children, that's why I judge Johnny's abuse of a child as immoral. There are two kinds of "hating child abuse" here, and they need not match - I could hate abusing children yet accept it as moral; or love abusing children yet reject it as immoral.

And we return to how I don't think you are analyzing your preference deep enough to see whether it is based on something objective or not. What informs your hatred of anyone abusing a child? Eventually, I agree we will get to a base preference, but it's not at this level. There are reasons you hate anyone abusing a child.

[Bust Nak]

And we return to how I don't think you are analyzing your preference deep enough to see whether it is based on something objective or not. What informs your hatred of anyone abusing a child?

I have empathy and feels emotional pain and sadness in seeing abused children (hypothetical or real.) That's pretty basic when it comes to preference, no?