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.

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 #741

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:21 amOkay, then going back to the original point, I am not really answering "should one abuse a child?" with a (3b) at all, just (2)?
If you are doing that, then that's fine but you aren't addressing the objectivism/subjectivism proper debate.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:21 amI am sure I told you this before, it's utterly bizarre that "I shouldn't abuse children because of my emotional response" count as objectivism.
The issue objectivism addresses (and therefore what non-objectivism or what we've been calling subjectivism proper addresses) does not focus only on what "I" should do. It's talking about what I think people (myself and others) should do. That's part of the language that makes it sound bizarre when its not.
Bust Nak wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:21 am
Let me frame a (3b) in a similar way to show the difference that I think may be causing some confusion. "I think it's good/bad because of different objective truths about the person I'm judging." That is basing my moral judgment on the subjective fact of reality that different people have different objective emotional reactions to moral situation X. Those objective differences change my view of what is good/bad in moral situation X.
How is this different from "it's good for me (or for everyone) because my emotional response to the fact people feel differently from each other"?
Okay, so: "I think child abuse is bad for everyone because of my emotional response to the fact that people have different feelings about child abuse?"

To clarify what I was saying: "I think child abuse is good for some and bad for some depending on the objective emotional response they have towards child abuse."

Do you still think those are the same concepts?

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 #742

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 4:33 pm If you are doing that, then that's fine but you aren't addressing the objectivism/subjectivism proper debate.
Earlier you said I was answering the question "what is your opinion on moral opinions" when I say, no moral opinion is true. That question looked very much like one of objectivism/subjectivism proper debate.
The issue objectivism addresses (and therefore what non-objectivism or what we've been calling subjectivism proper addresses) does not focus only on what "I" should do. It's talking about what I think people (myself and others) should do. That's part of the language that makes it sound bizarre when its not.
But "I think people (myself and others) should do X because of my emotional response" is also objectivism. Changing that part of the language doesn't make it any less bizarre.
Okay, so: "I think child abuse is bad for everyone because of my emotional response to the fact that people have different feelings about child abuse?"

To clarify what I was saying: "I think child abuse is good for some and bad for some depending on the objective emotional response they have towards child abuse."

Do you still think those are the same concepts?
Same concept in the sense that "I like ice-cream" and "I hate bitter gourd" is the same concept.

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 #743

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:31 amEarlier you said I was answering the question "what is your opinion on moral opinions" when I say, no moral opinion is true. That question looked very much like one of objectivism/subjectivism proper debate.
We've addressed various questions and used various categorizations to try to understand each other's answers to those questions. So we probably need to translate some things from one attempt to this one. In the latest categorization your answer to "what is your opinion on moral opinions" tells us whether you think moral opinion is an objective fact of reality or a subjective fact of reality. But (3a/3b) involves you answering a different question on the basis of your answer to the above question.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:31 amBut "I think people (myself and others) should do X because of my emotional response" is also objectivism. Changing that part of the language doesn't make it any less bizarre.
Why is that bizarre? Is your emotional response not an objective fact that is true for everyone? The subjective fact is not "my emotional response" but "people have different emotional responses".
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:31 am
Okay, so: "I think child abuse is bad for everyone because of my emotional response to the fact that people have different feelings about child abuse?"

To clarify what I was saying: "I think child abuse is good for some and bad for some depending on the objective emotional response they have towards child abuse."

Do you still think those are the same concepts?
Same concept in the sense that "I like ice-cream" and "I hate bitter gourd" is the same concept.
Analogically, my statements are akin to:

"I think everyone should eat chocolate ice cream because I dislike how I feel when I think about people liking different ice cream flavors."

and

"I think some people should eat chocolate ice cream and others should eat vanilla based on what emotional responses they feel towards chocolate vs. vanilla."

Do you still think these are the same concepts? If so, then how are these the same in the sense that "I like ice-cream" and "I hate bitter gourd" is the same concept?

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 #744

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:46 am We've addressed various questions and used various categorizations to try to understand each other's answers to those questions. So we probably need to translate some things from one attempt to this one. In the latest categorization your answer to "what is your opinion on moral opinions" tells us whether you think moral opinion is an objective fact of reality or a subjective fact of reality. But (3a/3b) involves you answering a different question on the basis of your answer to the above question.
Okay, granted.
Why is that bizarre? Is your emotional response not an objective fact that is true for everyone? The subjective fact is not "my emotional response" but "people have different emotional responses".
It's bizarre because nothing is subjectivism by that standard, "people have different emotional responses" is an objective fact that is true for everyone.
Analogically, my statements are akin to:

"I think everyone should eat chocolate ice cream because I dislike how I feel when I think about people liking different ice cream flavors."

and

"I think some people should eat chocolate ice cream and others should eat vanilla based on what emotional responses they feel towards chocolate vs. vanilla."

Do you still think these are the same concepts? If so, then how are these the same in the sense that "I like ice-cream" and "I hate bitter gourd" is the same concept?
Yes, I think that because I think the second is the same as "I think some people should eat chocolate ice cream and others should eat vanilla based on how I feel when people have different emotional responses they feel towards chocolate vs. vanilla." Both takes the form of "I think X should Y because on how I feel when Z."

I brought up "like vs hate" because of should vs shouldn't.

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 #745

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:58 amIt's bizarre because nothing is subjectivism by that standard, "people have different emotional responses" is an objective fact that is true for everyone.
All objective facts of reality and all subjective facts of reality are objectively true. That's why they are both called facts. That's not objectivism versus subjectivism. That "Bust Nak's response is X" is an objective fact of reality. That people have a good response to X, as a subjective fact of reality, is where it is true for some that their response is "yay" and for others that their response is "yuck".
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:58 am
Analogically, my statements are akin to:

"I think everyone should eat chocolate ice cream because I dislike how I feel when I think about people liking different ice cream flavors."

and

"I think some people should eat chocolate ice cream and others should eat vanilla based on what emotional responses they feel towards chocolate vs. vanilla."

Do you still think these are the same concepts? If so, then how are these the same in the sense that "I like ice-cream" and "I hate bitter gourd" is the same concept?
Yes, I think that because I think the second is the same as "I think some people should eat chocolate ice cream and others should eat vanilla based on how I feel when people have different emotional responses they feel towards chocolate vs. vanilla." Both takes the form of "I think X should Y because on how I feel when Z."

I brought up "like vs hate" because of should vs shouldn't.
But the second judgment is not based on how I feel in response to those different emotional responses, it is based on the fact that there are different emotional responses.

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 #746

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:53 pm All objective facts of reality and all subjective facts of reality are objectively true. That's why they are both called facts.
Why is "subjective fact" a thing at all, if it is objectively true?
But the second judgment is not based on how I feel in response to those different emotional responses, it is based on the fact that there are different emotional responses.
You like something yet it's not about feels?

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 #747

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 4:47 amWhy is "subjective fact" a thing at all, if it is objectively true?
Because some truths are 'mind'-independent and some aren't. Some truths depend on the person the statement is being applied to and some don't. We have different names for the different categories of truth.

It seems to me that your use of subjectivism, that it is my view and not someone else's, is not a different category of reality from objective truths but a synonym, another way of simply saying that my view is my view, which is trivially true.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 4:47 amYou like something yet it's not about feels?
If 'like' and 'feels' aren't synonyms, then yes. One can believe something based on how it makes them feel or on a fact outside of their mind or personal taste buds, etc.

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 #748

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:14 am Because some truths are 'mind'-independent and some aren't. Some truths depend on the person the statement is being applied to and some don't. We have different names for the different categories of truth.
Well this leads to some very weird things like "Johnny shouldn't abuse children because I don't like child abuse" being objectivism.
It seems to me that your use of subjectivism, that it is my view and not someone else's, is not a different category of reality from objective truths but a synonym, another way of simply saying that my view is my view, which is trivially true.
Subjectivity is the quality of being based on opinion or tastes, or opinions, in short, it is an umbellar term for how someone feels. If something is objectivity true, then it is not based on feels, tastes, or opinions. Subjectivity is definitely a category from objective truths, as it's not truths at all.
If 'like' and 'feels' aren't synonyms, then yes.
It's completely bizarre that would it be anything else. How is "I like ice-cream" different from "ice-cream feels great in my mouth?"

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 #749

Post by The Tanager »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:41 amWell this leads to some very weird things like "Johnny shouldn't abuse children because I don't like child abuse" being objectivism.
Why is that weird? If that is not objectivism, then one is (trivially) repeating one's self by connecting two words as synonyms. In other words, we aren't being told any new information. It's like saying "I like the Monsters of the Midway because I like the 1985 Chicago Bears."

Objectivism is the belief that the same action should be undertaken by everyone that finds themself in the same situation. There is only one truth in how one should act. Subjectivism says there are different truths depending on the subject. "Because I don't like child abuse" is not judging that there are different truths depending on the subject one is making the judgment about. That's not weird at all.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:41 amSubjectivity is the quality of being based on opinion or tastes, or opinions, in short, it is an umbellar term for how someone feels. If something is objectivity true, then it is not based on feels, tastes, or opinions. Subjectivity is definitely a category from objective truths, as it's not truths at all.
Subjectivity does not refer to what one person's taste or opinion is. Subjectivity refers to the answer for a singular question being fluid, dependent upon different tastes or opinions. It's a term that denotes that people feel different from each other and that the truth of statements takes this fact into account.
Bust Nak wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:41 amIt's completely bizarre that would it be anything else. How is "I like ice-cream" different from "ice-cream feels great in my mouth?"
That may not be different. I dislike objectifying women. Objectifying women feels great in my body. Those are different statements.

Back to the statement you were asking me about. I have a certain emotional reaction when thinking about people liking different ice cream flavors. Whatever that emotional reaction is. I like it. I don't like it. Doesn't matter. Regardless of that emotional reaction, the statement was that I think some people should eat chocolate and some vanilla because of (1) what emotional response they feel to chocolate and vanilla, not because of (2) how I feel about how they like different flavors from each other. That you see (1) and (2) as the same thing is baffling to me.

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 #750

Post by Bust Nak »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:55 pm Why is that weird?
Because that's clearly me stating my own subjective opinion.
If that is not objectivism, then one is (trivially) repeating one's self by connecting two words as synonyms. In other words, we aren't being told any new information. It's like saying "I like the Monsters of the Midway because I like the 1985 Chicago Bears."
Yes, we've been through this. Subjectivism is supposed to be trivial, just people stating what they like for arbitrary reasons that boils down to "that's how I roll."
Objectivism is the belief that the same action should be undertaken by everyone that finds themself in the same situation. There is only one truth in how one should act.
No, that's not it at all: "it is objectively moral when Bob does child abuse, but objectively immoral when Johnny does child abuse, these statements are objectively true" is an example of objectivism, yet different action should be taken depending on whether it's Bob or Johnny.
Subjectivity does not refer to what one person's taste or opinion is. Subjectivity refers to the answer for a singular question being fluid, dependent upon different tastes or opinions. It's a term that denotes that people feel different from each other and that the truth of statements takes this fact into account.
That implies that if everyone universally likes the same food, then some food is objectively tasty, even though we are talking about likes and dislikes. You still don't think that's weird?
That may not be different. I dislike objectifying women. Objectifying women feels great in my body. Those are different statements.
"I like ice-cream" and "ice-cream feels bad in my mouth" are different statements too, why would that mean "I like ice-cream" and "ice-cream feels good in my mouth" aren't synonymous.
Back to the statement you were asking me about. I have a certain emotional reaction when thinking about people liking different ice cream flavors. Whatever that emotional reaction is. I like it. I don't like it. Doesn't matter. Regardless of that emotional reaction, the statement was that I think some people should eat chocolate and some vanilla because of (1) what emotional response they feel to chocolate and vanilla, not because of (2) how I feel about how they like different flavors from each other. That you see (1) and (2) as the same thing is baffling to me.
How about "I think some people should eat chocolate and some vanilla because of [regardless of whatever reason you want to put in here]" is the same thing as "this is how I feel about people eating chocolate and vanilla?"

Post Reply