Subjective Morality

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
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.

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 #631

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 7:03 pm I agree. Then, isn't the one who dislikes child abuse yet says that Johnny's child abuse is moral the subjectivist proper rather than you? For they believe that no moral preference is true and that the moral should is judged in light of that fact.
No, we are both subjectivists proper since we both believe that no moral preference is true and judge moral in light of that fact.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #632

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:16 am
The Tanager wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 7:03 pm I agree. Then, isn't the one who dislikes child abuse yet says that Johnny's child abuse is moral the subjectivist proper rather than you? For they believe that no moral preference is true and that the moral should is judged in light of that fact.
No, we are both subjectivists proper since we both believe that no moral preference is true and judge moral in light of that fact.
But you don't have the 'moral should.' You are only sharing your moral preferences. You judge morality in light of your preferences, not in light of the fact that your preferences are one opinion among equally valid and differing opinions.

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 #633

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:45 am But you don't have the 'moral should.' You are only sharing your moral preferences. You judge morality in light of your preferences, not in light of the fact that your preferences are one opinion among equally valid and differing opinions.
Still not getting why that would be mutually exclusive. I judge morality in light of my preferences, I do that because of the fact a) no moral preference is objectively true and b) morality is not an objective feature of reality. Does that not count as judging morality in light of the fact that my preferences are one opinion among equally valid and differing opinions?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #634

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:01 amStill not getting why that would be mutually exclusive. I judge morality in light of my preferences, I do that because of the fact a) no moral preference is objectively true and b) morality is not an objective feature of reality. Does that not count as judging morality in light of the fact that my preferences are one opinion among equally valid and differing opinions?
I think it either ignores the fact that we all have equal "hallucinations" on the subject or contradicts that fact. It's saying that my hallucination is the best way to judge the actions of others and the one I'll go with, even though I know the other hallucinations are equally valid. That my way is the best way to judge and not the best way at the same time and in the same way.

It's akin to multiple people getting 3x6 wrong in different ways. One says the answer is 12, one says the answer is 24, another 36, another 9, another 3. You say it is 20. You believe these answers are all hallucinations, including your own, yet you judge everyone's answers by your answer. You judge yourself correct and others wrong. Obviously, this is an analogy, so don't take it too far and say stuff like "but we know the answer is 18" or that we know a correct answer is out there in this case, but not with subjective features of reality. Those are not the point the analogy is making.

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 #635

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #634]

The existence of a non-hallucinatory, objectively correct answer would be a rational reason to not judge everyone's answers by my answer. We don't have that reasoning available, since all these answers are hallucinations, including mine, why on Earth wouldn't I judge everyone's answers by my answer? How is that contradicting or ignoring that all answers are hallucinations, when it is part of what lead me to judge things by my answer in the first place? I really don't get what what's so confusing about something that trivial, given the premise that there isn't an objectively correct answer out there. It's one thing to not understand why I don't think there is an objectively true answer, it's quite another to not get why my conclusions follow from that premise.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #636

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 9:51 amThe existence of a non-hallucinatory, objectively correct answer would be a rational reason to not judge everyone's answers by my answer. We don't have that reasoning available, since all these answers are hallucinations, including mine, why on Earth wouldn't I judge everyone's answers by my answer? How is that contradicting or ignoring that all answers are hallucinations, when it is part of what lead me to judge things by my answer in the first place? I really don't get what what's so confusing about something that trivial, given the premise that there isn't an objectively correct answer out there. It's one thing to not understand why I don't think there is an objectively true answer, it's quite another to not get why my conclusions follow from that premise.
You don't have to know the correct answer to something to know that judging people by a known wrong answer isn't rational.

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 #637

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #636]

Sure, that isn't rational at all, but not seeing how that is relevant to what I said. Is that what you think I am doing when I judge other people's answers by my own?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #638

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Nov 03, 2020 12:17 pmSure, that isn't rational at all, but not seeing how that is relevant to what I said. Is that what you think I am doing when I judge other people's answers by my own?
Yes. You know your view is a hallucination, that it's not reality, that it's not the correct answer for people. Yet you judge them by your answer.

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 #639

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Nov 03, 2020 1:59 pm Yes. You know your view is a hallucination, that it's not reality, that it's not the correct answer for people. Yet you judge them by your answer.
Sure, but that's not what you said just before though. Earlier you said "judging people by a known wrong answer," here you are saying judging people by a hallucination, not the correct answer. Explain this discrepancy please, why equate the two?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Subjective Morality

Post #640

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Nov 04, 2020 4:18 amSure, but that's not what you said just before though. Earlier you said "judging people by a known wrong answer," here you are saying judging people by a hallucination, not the correct answer. Explain this discrepancy please, why equate the two?
I was using them as synonyms, but we can use them more narrowly. How do you want to define them? What does it mean for a hallucination to be wrong? What does it mean for a hallucination to be incorrect?

Post Reply