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

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #781

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 11:35 amYou used the phrase "key difference." That sounded like it's significant.
It's the significant difference between how you act regarding the moral choices and aesthetic choices of others. I'm not concerned if that difference is more significant than other differences, such as you picking to eat vanilla ice cream rather than bitter gourds.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 11:35 amAs for why it is different, it's different for the same board reasons why my taste on vanilla ice-cream is different to that of chocolate favor, because of some objective fact about me, whether it is taste buds or eye balls, of the brain that processes the signals.
Why those are the objective facts about you is what I'm interested in. You keep talking about it on the level that "those are the objective facts about me." I don't believe your claim that you react differently to the moral and aesthetic choices of others simply because of your eyeballs or brain.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 11:35 amThen it follows that I don't automatically support any philosophy, and still not very interested in the philosophical aspects of science. It works, that's good enough for me.
Everybody supports some philosophy. Philosophy matters. It affects our beliefs. Science does not tell us that your eyeballs, eardrums, or brain determines that you act differently to the moral and aesthetic choices of others. That is a philosophical claim.

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 #782

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 12:59 pm Why those are the objective facts about you is what I'm interested in. You keep talking about it on the level that "those are the objective facts about me." I don't believe your claim that you react differently to the moral and aesthetic choices of others simply because of your eyeballs or brain.
And yet you accept that I react differently to ice-cream and bitter gourds simply because of my taste buds or brain? You said the difference between moral and aesthetic, isn't any more significant than between ice-cream and bitter gourds, so why would one explanation be good enough for one but not the other, when they are supposed to be equally significant?
Science does not tell us that your eyeballs, eardrums, or brain determines that you act differently to the moral and aesthetic choices of others.
It doesn't? You might want to tell neuroscientists that they are barking up the wrong tree, studying the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

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

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #783

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 6:23 amAnd yet you accept that I react differently to ice-cream and bitter gourds simply because of my taste buds or brain?
I was going to say yes but I think it might be qualified the more I think about it. We do have certain flavors we like and dislike, that we didn't just choose to like or not. Yet, it seems like I've trained myself to like the taste of water, salads, etc. more simply by forcing myself to eat and drink that stuff when I didn't really like the taste of it. Assuming that my will doesn't have an impact on that, though, the determinism here does not equate to determinism in everything else (even if there really is determinism in everything else).

I actually said earlier that I thought the moral-aesthetic difference was more significant than the ice cream-bitter gourds difference but that I wasn't arguing for that. I don't think whether it is more significant or not is important here because I don't see how the significance has nothing to do with how these things work.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 6:23 amIt doesn't? You might want to tell neuroscientists that they are barking up the wrong tree, studying the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.
If those neuroscientists are saying that their studies show that determinism is true, then they are making a philosophical claim, which is often outside of their areas of expertise.

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 #784

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 10:05 am I was going to say yes but I think it might be qualified the more I think about it. We do have certain flavors we like and dislike, that we didn't just choose to like or not. Yet, it seems like I've trained myself to like the taste of water, salads, etc. more simply by forcing myself to eat and drink that stuff when I didn't really like the taste of it. Assuming that my will doesn't have an impact on that, though, the determinism here does not equate to determinism in everything else (even if there really is determinism in everything else).
Okay, just take this same chain of though and apply it to morality. We do have certain behaviors we like and dislike that we didn't just choose to like or not, and we can train ourselves to like some behaviors more by forcing ourselves to experience behavior that we didn't really like. Whether determinism is true or not doesn't see relevant here.
I don't think whether it is more significant or not is important here because I don't see how the significance has nothing to do with how these things work.
But doesn't it have something to do with the amount of detail in an explanation that you find acceptable?
If those neuroscientists are saying that their studies show that determinism is true, then they are making a philosophical claim, which is often outside of their areas of expertise.
Don't really care about that, suffice to say, that neuroscientists have said that their studies have shown that the brain has committed to certain simple actions, before the subject is aware of making a decision. That is within their areas of expertise, and I am okay with sticking to that much.

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

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #785

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 4:24 amOkay, just take this same chain of though and apply it to morality. We do have certain behaviors we like and dislike that we didn't just choose to like or not, and we can train ourselves to like some behaviors more by forcing ourselves to experience behavior that we didn't really like. Whether determinism is true or not doesn't see relevant here.
You asked me why I accept your take on food taste being explained by taste buds and brain but not your take on morality being explained by your eyes, ears, and brain. My response was basically that what's true of one is not necessarily true of the other. Even if food taste is a completely physical thing, this doesn't mean moral taste is. It could be, but each case must be supported on their own. It seems to me that morality involves the intellect and reasons, not just a physical process.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 4:24 am
I don't think whether it is more significant or not is important here because I don't see how the significance has nothing to do with how these things work.
But doesn't it have something to do with the amount of detail in an explanation that you find acceptable?
I think your explanation of your moral taste is incomplete. I don't see how that has anything to do with comparing the significances of the difference between aesthetics and morality with the difference between liking one bit of food and disliking the other.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 4:24 amDon't really care about that, suffice to say, that neuroscientists have said that their studies have shown that the brain has committed to certain simple actions, before the subject is aware of making a decision. That is within their areas of expertise, and I am okay with sticking to that much.
Some have claimed that. Some have claimed that it doesn't show that. After hearing both sides I think reason is on the latter's side but everyone must come to their own conclusion there and remain open-minded when new information comes in.

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 #786

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:28 pm You asked me why I accept your take on food taste being explained by taste buds and brain but not your take on morality being explained by your eyes, ears, and brain. My response was basically that what's true of one is not necessarily true of the other.
You say not necessarily true here, yet below you speak of the explanation being incomplete. Does not seem like compatible objection. An incomplete answer is the true answer minus the details, a false one is just incorrect.
It seems to me that morality involves the intellect and reasons, not just a physical process.
Why introduce these things when just a physical process is enough to explain it, at least as much as taste buds explains food taste?
I think your explanation of your moral taste is incomplete. I don't see how that has anything to do with comparing the significances of the difference between aesthetics and morality with the difference between liking one bit of food and disliking the other.
I think it is linked because explanation of my moral taste is exactly as incomplete as the explanation of my food taste. If you are not interested in the exact details in aesthetics, then why the interest in the exact details in morality, if food and morality are equally significant?
Some have claimed that. Some have claimed that it doesn't show that. After hearing both sides I think reason is on the latter's side but everyone must come to their own conclusion there and remain open-minded when new information comes in.
Open mind is fine, I am interested in why consistent results in predicting actions before a subject is aware of making a decision, is not enough to show that the brain has committed to certain simple actions, before the subject is aware of making a decision; if the brain hasn't committed then the prediction would not be accurate.

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

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #787

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 5:27 amYou say not necessarily true here, yet below you speak of the explanation being incomplete. Does not seem like compatible objection. An incomplete answer is the true answer minus the details, a false one is just incorrect.
Okay. I'll try not to use 'incomplete' to avoid confusion.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 5:27 am
It seems to me that morality involves the intellect and reasons, not just a physical process.
Why introduce these things when just a physical process is enough to explain it, at least as much as taste buds explains food taste?
Because I see no reason to think a physical process alone explains it.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 5:27 amI think it is linked because explanation of my moral taste is exactly as incomplete as the explanation of my food taste. If you are not interested in the exact details in aesthetics, then why the interest in the exact details in morality, if food and morality are equally significant?
I don't think they are "exactly as incomplete" as each other.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 5:27 amOpen mind is fine, I am interested in why consistent results in predicting actions before a subject is aware of making a decision, is not enough to show that the brain has committed to certain simple actions, before the subject is aware of making a decision; if the brain hasn't committed then the prediction would not be accurate.
First off, it has been a little bit since I revisited these particular discussions, so I could have missed recent improvements in the experiments. A main question I have is: why aren't the predictions 100% accurate? Since they aren't, the same data seems to lead to different actions at different times, thus, getting the prediction wrong sometimes. They obviously don't know enough to really single these things out from the data. Sure, the brain starts acting from muscle memory in the simple choice before them. Yet, people can still perform different actions from that initial activity. That seems to show some freedom of the will.

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 #788

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:27 pm Because I see no reason to think a physical process alone explains it.
So what's so different between food taste and moral taste that you are willing to accept the same explanation as complete for one but not the other?
A main question I have is: why aren't the predictions 100% accurate? Since they aren't, the same data seems to lead to different actions at different times, thus, getting the prediction wrong sometimes. They obviously don't know enough to really single these things out from the data. Sure, the brain starts acting from muscle memory in the simple choice before them. Yet, people can still perform different actions from that initial activity. That seems to show some freedom of the will.
"Freedom of will" is going back to the philosophy of determinism, isn't it? I am only interested in what science can show, i.e. somewhat accurate prediction before the person is aware of making a decision. What that means philosophically, I don't care all that much. What that means scientifically, is that we don't completely understand what goes into the decision of moving one's arm, maybe higher resolution scans would increase the accuracy, maybe more isolation of the parts being scanned, maybe longer training of the software.

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

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #789

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 6:16 amSo what's so different between food taste and moral taste that you are willing to accept the same explanation as complete for one but not the other?
We agree that our food tastes are (at least) largely uncontrollable. We agree that our food taste isn't formed through a reasoning process that considers our beliefs about facts and works off of these using other principles to form our food tastes. I think our moral tastes (at least) can be formed through a reasoning process. I may be incorrect on that but you need to show this isn't how our moral tastes are formed for your argument to go through.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 6:16 am"Freedom of will" is going back to the philosophy of determinism, isn't it? I am only interested in what science can show, i.e. somewhat accurate prediction before the person is aware of making a decision. What that means philosophically, I don't care all that much.
Then you shouldn't use it in your philosophical claim that moral taste doesn't involve a reasoning process. If you think this is a scientific claim, then you need to show the science that shows this. What you've given doesn't scientifically show that.

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 #790

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 9:54 am We agree that our food tastes are (at least) largely uncontrollable. We agree that our food taste isn't formed through a reasoning process that considers our beliefs about facts and works off of these using other principles to form our food tastes. I think our moral tastes (at least) can be formed through a reasoning process. I may be incorrect on that but you need to show this isn't how our moral tastes are formed for your argument to go through.
Recall if you will, my polar bear example. What your reasoning process is processing, is how a particular policy's costs or benefits, as opposed to reason about moral tastes on keeping polar bears alive; that much remains uncontrollable and isn't formed through a reasoning process.
Then you shouldn't use it in your philosophical claim that moral taste doesn't involve a reasoning process.
That's the point! I keep reminding you over and over again, explaining why I have certain taste re: taste buds, eyeballs and brains, goes beyond philosophy. I kept pushing my original answer: there is not accounting for taste; beauty is in the eye of the beholder; that's how I roll.

Post Reply