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]

Perhaps my categorization needs updated but I still don't think it is the same. Let me ask you a question before explaining that further. Do you think breakfast choice is an objective or subjective feature of reality?

[Bust Nak]

Perhaps my categorization needs updated but I still don't think it is the same. Let me ask you a question before explaining that further. Do you think breakfast choice is an objective or subjective feature of reality?

Depends on the exact wording, what one likes for breakfast is subjective, regardless of whatever facts is taken into consideration. What one has chosen / is choosing / will choose for breakfast is an objective factual claim.

[The Tanager]

Perhaps my categorization needs updated but I still don't think it is the same. Let me ask you a question before explaining that further. Do you think breakfast choice is an objective or subjective feature of reality?

Depends on the exact wording, what one likes for breakfast is subjective, regardless of whatever facts is taken into consideration. What one has chosen / is choosing / will choose for breakfast is an objective factual claim.

I'm asking whether what one should choose for breakfast is a subjective or objective feature of reality to you. Should everyone choose healthy options over unhealthy options?

[Bust Nak]

I'm asking whether what one should choose for breakfast is a subjective or objective feature of reality to you. Should everyone choose healthy options over unhealthy options?

That is a subjective feature of reality. "This is what one should choose for breakfast" is the exact same thing as "I prefer one to choose this for breakfast." Affirming your earlier point that, there is no new information in "you should pick this because I want you to pick this" other than to inform people that my stance is different to those objectivists who threat these as different concepts.

I also think this "prefer" here is the same "prefer" in "I prefer classical music." The difference is the thing being preferred, the nature of prefer stays the same.

[The Tanager]

I'm asking whether what one should choose for breakfast is a subjective or objective feature of reality to you. Should everyone choose healthy options over unhealthy options?

That is a subjective feature of reality.

Okay. Now, does that belief (that breakfast choices are a subjective feature of reality) factor into your choice to eat a healthy breakfast? In other words, do you choose a healthy breakfast because you believe choosing one's breakfast is a subjective feature of reality?

If yes, then that would make it a "like-plus" example just as why I like people to reject flat earth theory or why I like people to have personal freedom in music choices. If not, then it's a "like" example just as why I like the taste of ice cream or why I like folk music.

"This is what one should choose for breakfast" is the exact same thing as "I prefer one to choose this for breakfast." Affirming your earlier point that, there is no new information in "you should pick this because I want you to pick this" other than to inform people that my stance is different to those objectivists who threat these as different concepts.

Whatever language is used, both you and the objectivist, in discussing these things with each other, are talking about two concepts: preference and an objective should (or whatever term you want to use).

[Bust Nak]

That is a subjective feature of reality.

Okay. Now, does that belief (that breakfast choices are a subjective feature of reality) factor into your choice to eat a healthy breakfast? In other words, do you choose a healthy breakfast because you believe choosing one's breakfast is a subjective feature of reality?

No.

If yes, then that would make it a "like-plus" example just as why I like people to reject flat earth theory or why I like people to have personal freedom in music choices. If not, then it's a "like" example just as why I like the taste of ice cream or why I like folk music.

Sure, but what I don't get is why that "like-plus" is more significant than the "like" plus health value of ice-cream.

Whatever language is used, both you and the objectivist, in discussing these things with each other, are talking about two concepts: preference and an objective should (or whatever term you want to use).

Sure, preference and an objective should are definitely two concepts, but we were talking about preference and should, that's one concept to me, but two to you.

[The Tanager]

That is a subjective feature of reality.

Okay. Now, does that belief (that breakfast choices are a subjective feature of reality) factor into your choice to eat a healthy breakfast? In other words, do you choose a healthy breakfast because you believe choosing one's breakfast is a subjective feature of reality?

No.

Then your preference for a healthy breakfast is not what I've called subjectivism proper. And, in parallel, neither would your preference for not abusing a child. Subjectivism proper would be when you apply the belief that breakfast choices are a subjective feature to people's individual preferences to inform your preference on the matter.

Sure, but what I don't get is why that "like-plus" is more significant than the "like" plus health value of ice-cream.

It's only significant in the sense of whether something is subjectivism proper or not.

Sure, preference and an objective should are definitely two concepts, but we were talking about preference and should, that's one concept to me, but two to you.

Which talking are you referring to here? We've focused on your preference/should concept at times but have discussed the objective should at others, which is a fictional concept for you when discussing morality, but a second concept, nonetheless.

[Bust Nak]

Then your preference for a healthy breakfast is not what I've called subjectivism proper. And, in parallel, neither would your preference for not abusing a child. Subjectivism proper would be when you apply the belief that breakfast choices are a subjective feature to people's individual preferences to inform your preference on the matter.

Right, but now it seems to me that not doing subjectivism proper isn't such a big deal after all, with the following affirmation...

It's only significant in the sense of whether something is subjectivism proper or not.

This tells me that subjectivism proper or not, is just about the features of thing being liked, rather than about the nature of liking. Is it all that significant that I like something for one arbitrary feature while disregarding another arbitrary feature?

Which talking are you referring to here? We've focused on your preference/should concept at times but have discussed the objective should at others, which is a fictional concept for you when discussing morality, but a second concept, nonetheless.

Sometimes I spoke about my views sometimes yours. This time, you asked me about whether "should" is a subjective or objective feature of reality, this is the one concept "should."

[The Tanager]

Right, but now it seems to me that not doing subjectivism proper isn't such a big deal after all, with the following affirmation...

It's only significant in the sense of whether something is subjectivism proper or not.

This tells me that subjectivism proper or not, is just about the features of thing being liked, rather than about the nature of liking. Is it all that significant that I like something for one arbitrary feature while disregarding another arbitrary feature?

If I understand you correctly, then I'm fine with your initial distinction here. But I wouldn't describe either "there is no objective truth here" or "there is objective truth here" as an arbitrary thing. It's not based on random choice or personal whim. It's based on reason, it's based on reality. While what ice cream flavor one likes could accurately be described as an arbitrary feature. But, perhaps more to the point, I do think it's a big deal whether or not our views towards others takes all truth into account, rather than just our own personal whims.

Sometimes I spoke about my views sometimes yours. This time, you asked me about whether "should" is a subjective or objective feature of reality, this is the one concept "should."

I apologize for returning to the larger point, then.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #720]

Take all truths into account? It can't be literally all truth, since I can think of all sorts of irrelevant truth about ice-cream, why do I care about what color tub is when I am evaluating whether it is healthy for breakfast or not? And if you meant all relevant truths, then the question becomes whether the fact that taste is an objective feature of reality is relevant when it comes to judging the freedom there of. The kind of sexual encounter an individual finds most arousing is a subjective feature of reality, yet you don't care one bit about that fact in wanting child sex abuse banned.