Subjective Morality

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Subjective Morality

Post #1

Post by 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.
Divine Insight wrote: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.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 431 times
Been thanked: 27 times
Contact:

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #411

Post by Aetixintro »

[Replying to post 1 by The Tanager]

Notice. Book published in 2018 arguing for Objective Moral Realism.

Compassionate Moral Realism by Colin Marshall, Oxford University Press (OUP).

Here is the presentation at OUP: https://global.oup.com/academic/product ... 0198809685

And here is a review by University of Notre Dame as I haven't read it myself, also:
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/compassionate-moral-realism/

A presentation and option to buy at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Compassionate-Mo ... 0198809689

A book review by Mind Journal behind payment wall: https://academic.oup.com/mind/article-a ... 31/5511598

Objective Morality is marching onwards toward Utopia! :study: :D 8-)
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #412

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: 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.
As I keep asking you since the beginning of this conversation, so what? You do the same when it comes to music, reacting in different ways to the same observation/belief. Why is it okay when it comes to music but not when it comes to morality?
In one of those you aren't actually incorporating your observation that "opinion is all there is".
And you came to that conclusion just because I dislike stuff that you don't dislike? Seems like a non-sequitur to me.
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."
So what? I keep asking you this and the closest thing to an explanation I got form you is, "I'm fine with someone doing X if they want to, when I think opinion is all there is to it." That's your preference, not mine. I'm fine with someone doing some things if they want to, when I think opinion is all there is to it. I'm not fine with someone doing some other things even they want to, when I think opinion is all there is to it. Why must I be fine with the things you are fine with?
Saying "opinion is all there is" leads to nothing being worse or better because there is no truth to make such a judgment.
That's not correct, or at least clumsy for missing a very important word. Saying "opinion is all there is" leads to nothing being objectively worse or objectively better because there is no truth to make such a judgment. Again, think music taste - there is no truth to make a judgment as to which piece of music is better than another, yet you have no problem judging country music as worse than other kinds of music.
To make the judgment that child abuse is worse than not abusing children is bringing a standard to judge the various views by.
Yep, that standard being my own feelings. That's perfectly compatible with the idea that there is no truth to make such a judgment. "No truth" is very different from "no standards."
They address different issues. If that's what you mean by "turning on and off," then that is what we should do.
Then why are you making a big deal about simple subjectivism when I do it?
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.
"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."
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.
I noticed the "therefore" here, how exactly does the premise "the aesthetic value of music is subjective, people are made happy by different styles" lead to the conclusion "The Tanager is fine with them listening to different styles of music?"
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.
It's not only factor for me when judging subjective matter. It's not a factor for me when deciding objective matters, "the subjectivism proper claim on the nature of music taste" is an objective matter therefore my, nor anyone else's, taste is not a factor at all.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #413

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote:As I keep asking you since the beginning of this conversation, so what? You do the same when it comes to music, reacting in different ways to the same observation/belief. Why is it okay when it comes to music but not when it comes to morality?
What same observation/belief are you referring to here?
Bust Nak wrote:Then why are you making a big deal about simple subjectivism when I do it?
Because you claim you are addressing subjectivism proper but then seem to revert back to simple subjectivism (something like: "this is my opinion on the matter and it's different than yours") in your answer at times. Then I'll say something about that and you'll say I'm forgetting the extra bit. Then I'll say keep with the extra bit instead of saying stuff that leaves off the extra bit.
Bust Nak wrote:
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.
"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."
All I'm meaning there is that people's personal likes/dislikes factor into what kind of thing music taste is. This is true whether everyone's personal likes/dislikes agree or not, although they usually do not on subjective things.
Bust Nak wrote:I noticed the "therefore" here, how exactly does the premise "the aesthetic value of music is subjective, people are made happy by different styles" lead to the conclusion "The Tanager is fine with them listening to different styles of music?"
It's because aesthetic value is subjective for each individual that I'm fine with people listening to those different musical styles. If aesthetic value was objective, then I wouldn't be fine with people listening to objectively bad music.

Any direct thing I didn't respond to is because I feel like I'd just be repeating myself from before.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #414

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: What same observation/belief are you referring to here?
A piece of music. Borrowing your words: Seeing that "opinion is all there is" in country music leads you to conclude something like: "I dislike music." While seeing that "opinion is all there is" in classical music leads you to conclude something like: "I like music." You are reacting in different ways to the same observation/belief - and I would say there is more similarities between country and classical than between music taste and morality taste.
Because you claim you are addressing subjectivism proper but then seem to revert back to simple subjectivism (something like: "this is my opinion on the matter and it's different than yours") in your answer at times. Then I'll say something about that and you'll say I'm forgetting the extra bit. Then I'll say keep with the extra bit instead of saying stuff that leaves off the extra bit.
But you do the exactly same thing when it comes to music, popping from "music is properly subjective" and "this is my opinion on country music and it's different to yours" in the space of a single sentence.
All I'm meaning there is that people's personal likes/dislikes factor into what kind of thing music taste is. This is true whether everyone's personal likes/dislikes agree or not, although they usually do not on subjective things.
But people's personal ideas about what shape the Earth is does not factor into what kind of thing the shape of the Earth is?

More importantly, if that's all you meant, then what's the problem with me disregarding Johnny's likes/dislike as his taste when I judge him?
It's because aesthetic value is subjective for each individual that I'm fine with people listening to those different musical styles.
That doesn't seem to answer my question. I asked you why "aesthetic value is subjective for each individual" lead to "The Tanager's fine with people listening to those different musical styles." Looks like you just repeated the same thing back to me.
If aesthetic value was objective, then I wouldn't be fine with people listening to objectively bad music.
That much is easy to understand. I am not fine with people believing in a flat Earth.
Any direct thing I didn't respond to is because I feel like I'd just be repeating myself from before.
That's fine.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #415

Post by AgnosticBoy »

[Replying to post 1 by The Tanager]

I assume Bust Nak has been arguing against morality being objective. But on another thread, it seems he's trying to argue for objective morality:
Bust Nak wrote: It's not suppose to help, it's suppose to be fair, everyone suffer a moderate amount, as opposed to some suffering a huge amount while others don't.
Bust Nak wrote: The state is suppose to do the evening out with socialism.
Why the inconsistency? Are you offering your socialist standard as an imperative? You mentioned the words "suppose to" twice, what did you mean by that if not an objective standard?
Bust Nak wrote:You might not have noticed, but I am the resident subjectivist here, I'd like to see them try to prove objective morality or purpose.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #416

Post by Bust Nak »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Why the inconsistency?
Loaded question cannot be answered.
Are you offering your socialist standard as an imperative?
Yes.
You mentioned the words "suppose to" twice, what did you mean by that if not an objective standard?
An subjective standard obviously. What else where you expecting from the resident subjectivist?

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #417

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Bust Nak wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote: Why the inconsistency?
Loaded question cannot be answered.
It can be answered but perhaps you dont' want to.
Bust Nak wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote:Are you offering your socialist standard as an imperative?
Yes.
Imperative means obligatory - something that "should" be done.
Bust Nak wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote:You mentioned the words "suppose to" twice, what did you mean by that if not an objective standard?
An subjective standard obviously. What else where you expecting from the resident subjectivist?
Can you reconcile how a "should" statement is meant to be taken as a "subjective" standard? Although you haven't proven such a statement, which leaves it as a belief, but the "should" part is consistent with 'objective' standards.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #418

Post by Bust Nak »

AgnosticBoy wrote: It can be answered but perhaps you dont' want to.
No, it cannot be answered since the premise that there is any inconsistency, is false.
Imperative means obligatory - something that "should" be done.
Correct.
Can you reconcile how a "should" statement is meant to be taken as a "subjective" standard?
With ease? Which part of a "should" statement relative to a subjective standard needs reconciling?
Although you haven't proven such a statement, which leaves it as a belief, but the "should" part is consistent with 'objective' standards.
Sure. But that's moot since it's also consistent with a subjective standard.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #419

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Bust Nak wrote:
AgnosticBoy wrote: It can be answered but perhaps you dont' want to.
No, it cannot be answered since the premise that there is any inconsistency, is false.
Imperative means obligatory - something that "should" be done.
Correct.
Can you reconcile how a "should" statement is meant to be taken as a "subjective" standard?
With ease? Which part of a "should" statement relative to a subjective standard needs reconciling?
Although you haven't proven such a statement, which leaves it as a belief, but the "should" part is consistent with 'objective' standards.
Sure. But that's moot since it's also consistent with a subjective standard.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, your standard boils down to an opinion and it's subjective? In other words, you believe we should make everyone suffer?

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #420

Post by Bust Nak »

AgnosticBoy wrote: So if I'm understanding you correctly, your standard boils down to an opinion and it's subjective?
Correct.
In other words, you believe we should make everyone suffer?
Something like that. I believe we should make no one suffers. But since that is not practical, the next best thing is everyone suffer as equally as it is practical to do so. A side note, there are two unrelated claims here, 1) morality is subjective and 2) socialism is to way to go. It's not an "in other words" but an "also."

Post Reply