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]

Again, think food taste, what do you think someone is saying, when you hear them say "this pizza is the best?"

Maybe try filing in this syllogism:

1) this pizza is the best.
…
n) therefore my opinion is true for everyone.

Simple subjectivists are only saying something like: "I approve of the taste of this pizza." This only considers one's taste as it relates to themself. But then we can also make claims as we consider ourselves as part of a larger community. One could go further than simple subjectivism and say something like: "I think everyone else should eat this pizza that I approve of." But this is wanting people to be obligated by your personal taste (something that is objective to them) rather than their own. If their obligation is subjectively based, then it would be based on their personal taste.

That is why I think agent relativism is actually subjectivism proper, while appraiser relativism is an objective kind of morality...if it goes beyond what simple subjectivism says, considering only what an individual thinks is their taste.

[Bust Nak]

Simple subjectivists are only saying something like: "I approve of the taste of this pizza." This only considers one's taste as it relates to themself. But then we can also make claims as we consider ourselves as part of a larger community. One could go further than simple subjectivism and say something like: "I think everyone else should eat this pizza that I approve of."

Wait a minute, why are you switching from food taste to what people should do? Can't we focus on food taste for just this bit? How do you get from I approve of the taste of this pizza to my opinion is true for everyone? I think we need to establish this bit first because your next bit seem to be dependent of this premise.

But this is wanting people to be obligated by your personal taste (something that is objective to them) rather than their own.

If my opinion is not true for them, then why is it still considered objective? This is why I think you need to fill in logic for going from "my opinion is best" to "it's true for everyone."

If their obligation is subjectively based, then it would be based on their personal taste.

Why? How are you going from "their obligation is subjectively based" to "it is based on their personal taste?" Don't you see the question begging nature of this?

Why this and not: Appraiser relativism is actually subjectivism proper because if their obligation is subjectively based, then it would be based on my personal taste?

[wiploc]

Unless I don't want to, right? In which case I am obliged not to do what you want.

Did I get that right?

No, you did not. There is no unless you don't want to in.

As I keep telling The Tanager, think food taste. Would it make any sense for someone to say, "I love this pizza, unless you don't like it?"

It works that way for me, often enough. If you tell me that's the best pizza, I may be willing to give it another try, opening myself to the experience, trying to see why you like it, and possibly deciding that I like it too.

Sex may be the best example. If Joe wants to do something to turn Sara on, but it turns out that that thing would turn Sara off, then Joe might do well to quit wanting to do that thing.

Some truths are social in nature. The value of one share of IBM stock, for instance, depends entirely on what other people think it is worth. To learn that kind of truth, you have to consult other people. So, if you told me you don't like IBM, that could legitimately influence my own opinion of IBM.

(It's important to know how to distinguish social truths from the other kind. One shouldn't decide whether social distancing is good, or whether the earth goes around the sun, by having your friends take a vote.)

No, because whether you like it or not, it would have no bearing on how much I love the taste of this pizza.

How does your love of pizza oblige me in any way?

You say that I'm obliged to do what you want, simply because you want it. But all you've established is that you like pizza.

[wiploc]

You are obliged to do what I want you to do, simply because I want you to.

Wait a minute, why are you switching from food taste to what people should do?

I can't tell if you're backpedaling or what.

[The Tanager]

Wait a minute, why are you switching from food taste to what people should do? Can't we focus on food taste for just this bit? How do you get from I approve of the taste of this pizza to my opinion is true for everyone? I think we need to establish this bit first because your next bit seem to be dependent of this premise.

I'm switching because you are saying you go beyond simple subjectivism. If all you are saying is "I approve of X", then this is just simple subjectivism. Even saying "I like it when Johnny does such-and-such" is just another way of saying "I approve of X." At this point there is no "my opinion is true for everyone."

If my opinion is not true for them, then why is it still considered objective? This is why I think you need to fill in logic for going from "my opinion is best" to "it's true for everyone."

If you are going beyond simple subjectivism, then you must say something different than "I like X." It's been hard pinning down exactly what more you are claiming to say. At times you use different phrases, but then seem to return to how you are just stating what you approve of, which is simple subjectivism.

Why? How are you going from "their obligation is subjectively based" to "it is based on their personal taste?" Don't you see the question begging nature of this?

Why this and not: Appraiser relativism is actually subjectivism proper because if their obligation is subjectively based, then it would be based on my personal taste?

I think we need to get our definition of subjective and objective from our definition of subject and object. How would you define 'subject' and 'object'? I would say a subject is an individual who possess beliefs, tastes, opinions. An object is something external to the subject.

[Bust Nak]

It works that way for me, often enough. If you tell me that's the best pizza, I may be willing to give it another try, opening myself to the experience, trying to see why you like it, and possibly deciding that I like it too.

That's still your own opinion on that pizza, not mine.

Sex may be the best example. If Joe wants to do something to turn Sara on, but it turns out that that thing would turn Sara off, then Joe might do well to quit wanting to do that thing.

That's still the same thing, Joe is referring to his own opinion, not Sara's.

Some truths are social in nature. The value of one share of IBM stock, for instance, depends entirely on what other people think it is worth. To learn that kind of truth, you have to consult other people. So, if you told me you don't like IBM, that could legitimately influence my own opinion of IBM.

Right, your own opinion.

How does your love of pizza oblige me in any way?

It doesn't.

You say that I'm obliged to do what you want, simply because you want it. But all you've established is that you like pizza.

Right, because we were talking about two different spheres of taste, you don't put paintings in your mouth, and you don't listen to ice-cream. Taste on what to and what not to do and taste on what is and what isn't tasty are both taste, but different spheres.

I can't tell if you're backpedaling or what.

I am not, I gave him and challenge and want him to fulfil it before moving to the next part.

[Bust Nak]

I'm switching because you are saying you go beyond simple subjectivism. If all you are saying is "I approve of X", then this is just simple subjectivism.

It's not though. I've pointed out why already: "In my opinion the Earth is a ball" is just simple subjectivism, those who think the shape of the Earth is an objective fact, such as you or I, can still say that much, it's an opinion that reflects objective reality outside of one's mind.

What makes my "I approve of X" different form simple subjectivism, what makes it subjectivism proper, is that this personal approval of mine, is all there is to morality, just as "this pizza is tasty" goes beyond simple subjectivism, as my finding it pleasing to my palette, is what all there is to taste.

Even saying "I like it when Johnny does such-and-such" is just another way of saying "I approve of X." At this point there is no "my opinion is true for everyone."

That's exactly my point - in the same way, saying my opinion is best, does not make my opinion true for everyone. Without that premise of me making it true for everyone, your charge of inconsistency is invalidated.

If you are going beyond simple subjectivism, then you must say something different than "I like X." It's been hard pinning down exactly what more you are claiming to say.

It really shouldn't be though, just think food or music taste. As I keep wondering, why is it so hard to process what I am saying within the framework of everyday subjectivity that is so initiative to you?

At times you use different phrases, but then seem to return to how you are just stating what you approve of, which is simple subjectivism.

It's not though. Look back at your original explanation back in Feb:

"To me simple subjectivism observes "some people believe lying is moral, while others believe it is immoral." I think moral objectivism and moral subjectivism both agree with this observation and make a further point. Moral objectivists say that one of these claims corresponds to reality outside of one's own mind. Moral subjectivists say that neither claim corresponds to reality outside of one's own mind."

The bit in bold, (or as I would like to put it, personal opinion is all there is to it,) is what makes the difference between simple subjectivism and subjectivism proper.

I think we need to get our definition of subjective and objective from our definition of subject and object. How would you define 'subject' and 'object'? I would say a subject is an individual who possess beliefs, tastes, opinions. An object is something external to the subject.

More simply, subject is the judge, object is the thing being judged. I think that lines up with what you are saying here.

With that in mind, would you like to have a go at justify going from "their obligation is subjectively based" to "it is based on their personal taste" (as opposed to it is based on my personal taste?")

[The Tanager]

It's not though. Look back at your original explanation back in Feb:

"To me simple subjectivism observes "some people believe lying is moral, while others believe it is immoral." I think moral objectivism and moral subjectivism both agree with this observation and make a further point. Moral objectivists say that one of these claims corresponds to reality outside of one's own mind. Moral subjectivists say that neither claim corresponds to reality outside of one's own mind."

The bit in bold, (or as I would like to put it, personal opinion is all there is to it,) is what makes the difference between simple subjectivism and subjectivism proper.

But tied to the objectivist belief is how one treats the various opinions out there. Because they are untrue, they are damaging in some way (teaching falsity, causing physical harm, etc.). Without a true opinion, there can be no real damage; only a perception of damage within your mind that does not correspond with reality outside of yourself. If one believes this is true, then it seems to me that they would take that into account of their judgments. I don't hold people to my taste in music because I see that as a reality within myself, not them.

More simply, subject is the judge, object is the thing being judged. I think that lines up with what you are saying here.

With that in mind, would you like to have a go at justify going from "their obligation is subjectively based" to "it is based on their personal taste" (as opposed to it is based on my personal taste?")

I'm wondering if it lines up when we try to get at the distinction of a subject having subjective and objective kinds of beliefs. Can a subject have judge-beliefs and object-being-judged-beliefs? In your usage, judges have beliefs that are about objects.

To me, a subjective belief is a belief whose source is the subject's mind, or to put it another way, a belief dependent upon the subject's mind for its truth. An objective belief is a belief whose source is external to the subject, the world outside, or a belief independent of the subject's mind for its truth.

[Bust Nak]

But tied to the objectivist belief is how one treats the various opinions out there. Because they are untrue, they are damaging in some way (teaching falsity, causing physical harm, etc.). Without a true opinion, there can be no real damage; only a perception of damage within your mind that does not correspond with reality outside of yourself. If one believes this is true, then it seems to me that they would take that into account of their judgments.

Right, but that's irrelevant to me because I am not a moral objectivist and do not believe the above is true. Tied to the subjectivist belief is a different way of treating the various opinions out there. There is no such thing as a true opinion where it comes to subjective matters, as truth presuppose an accurate reflection of objective reality, which does not apply to a "reality within myself" as you called it. This is what I believe to be true, and I take that into account of my judgment.

I don't hold people to my taste in music because I see that as a reality within myself, not them.

Why does your taste has to be a reality outside of yourself to hold people to said taste?

I'm wondering if it lines up when we try to get at the distinction of a subject having subjective and objective kinds of beliefs. Can a subject have judge-beliefs and object-being-judged-beliefs? In your usage, judges have beliefs that are about objects.

Consider the following:

a) I believe the Earth is a ball.
b) I believe the Earth is beautiful.

a) is objective belief while b) is a subjective one. In both cases, I am the subject and the Earth is the object. I don't see why the definitions of subject and object would change as we explore the distinction of subjective vs objective kinds of beliefs.

To me, a subjective belief is a belief whose source is the subject's mind, or to put it another way, a belief dependent upon the subject's mind for its truth.

An objective belief is a belief whose source is external to the subject, the world outside, or a belief independent of the subject's mind for its truth.

Right, no problems here. I am not seeing how that helps make the case for going from "their obligation is subjectively based" to "it is based on their personal taste as opposed to mine" though.

[The Tanager]

But tied to the objectivist belief is how one treats the various opinions out there. Because they are untrue, they are damaging in some way (teaching falsity, causing physical harm, etc.). Without a true opinion, there can be no real damage; only a perception of damage within your mind that does not correspond with reality outside of yourself. If one believes this is true, then it seems to me that they would take that into account of their judgments.

Right, but that's irrelevant to me because I am not a moral objectivist and do not believe someone's opinion on moral matters is untrue, I don't even believe there is such a thing as a true opinion where it comes to subjective matters.

The part I bolded isn't irrelevant to you. You think there is no true opinion. It seems to me that without a truth of the matter, then there is no real damage. The truth is that you have a perception of damage that does not correspond with reality outside of yourself. If you believe that is true in ethics, that the damage you perceive in child abuse doesn't really exist as damage, then your judgment of someone else who abuses a child should take that fact into consideration.

I'm wondering if it lines up when we try to get at the distinction of a subject having subjective and objective kinds of beliefs. Can a subject have judge-beliefs and object-being-judged-beliefs? In your usage, judges have beliefs that are about objects.

To me, a subjective belief is a belief whose source is the subject's mind, or to put it another way, a belief dependent upon the subject's mind for its truth.

A belief about what though? About an object surely. If so then we are talking about the same thing.

Yes, a belief about an object. I think there could be an (unintentional) equivocation lurking.

What is your belief about the proposition that "rap music is good"? I don't think that statement is objectively true or false. It is subjectively true (and false). When I, as the judge/appraiser/subject, think it is true depends on who it is being ascribed to. If you make that statement, then I think it is false. If my son makes that statement, then I think it is true. That this statement is subjectively true has nothing to do with my personal taste on the matter (except the obvious statement that my subjective opinion is that this statement is a subjective truth). What makes it subjectively true or false to me is sourced in the subject's mind making the statement, of whom I am judging.

What is your belief about the proposition that "the earth is flat"? I think that statement is objectively false. That I, as the judge/appraiser/subject, think it is objectively false does not take anyone's personal opinions or tastes into consideration (except for the obvious statement that it agrees with my opinion on the matter), unlike the previous example. You say it, my son says it, someone else says it; doesn't matter. What makes this objectively true or fase is sourced in something outside of the subjective minds making the statement.

It seems to me that what you say about morality is more like the latter than the former. What is your belief about the proposition that "child abuse is harmful/bad"?