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]

This is the inconsistency that I've tried to get at different ways. Believing there is no one standard to judge all people's opinions by and then judging them all by one standard.

If that is somehow inconsistent, then why do you judge music by one standard while believing that there is no one standard to judge music by?

There are two judgments we are talking about here. What musical style do I think I should listen to? What musical style do I think Johnny should listen to? Because I believe opinion is all there is, i.e., that there is no objective truth, all that is left are the different subjective preferences people have. I base my judgment on that belief. I base my judgment on the subjective preferences of the individual who will be listening to the musical style. Because I believe there is no one standard to judge all people's actions by, I will not judge them all by one standard. I judge their actions by different standards: each person's subjective preference. You do the same with music. That's subjectivism proper. That's consistent.

Believing there is no one standard and then judging what I think I should do and what I think Johnny should do by the same one standard is inconsistent.

You say there is no truth and then still judge them as though your opinion is true outside of you, applying it to others.

Are you judging music as though your opinion is true outside of you, when you apply it to all music?

Judging music in what way? What I think I should listen to (i.e., what I think is good music)? What I think others should listen to? Whether I think there is an objectively best kind of music?

[Bust Nak]

There are two judgments we are talking about here. What musical style do I think I should listen to? What musical style do I think Johnny should listen to? Because I believe opinion is all there is, i.e., that there is no objective truth, all that is left are the different subjective preferences people have. I base my judgment on that belief. I base my judgment on the subjective preferences of the individual who will be listening to the musical style. Because I believe there is no one standard to judge all people's actions by, I will not judge them all by one standard. I judge their actions by different standards: each person's subjective preference. You do the same with music. That's subjectivism proper. That's consistent.

First of all, I don't do that with music with respect to the second judgment. I judge what musical style I think Johnny should listen to according to my preference.

Secondly, while there are two judgments here, I am asking you about the first one - what musical style do you think you should listen to, or rather what musical style do you like? Why do you judge music by one standard - the subjective preference of the individual who will be listening to it, i.e. yours, while believing that there is no one standard to judge music by?

Judging music in what way? What I think I should listen to (i.e., what I think is good music)? What I think others should listen to? Whether I think there is an objectively best kind of music?

What you think is good music. While we are here, are "what music is good" the really same thing as "what music should I listen to" to you? While one trivially implies the other, I don't think they mean the same thing.

[The Tanager]

First of all, I don't do that with music with respect to the second judgment. I judge what musical style I think Johnny should listen to according to my preference.

You think Johnny is making a mistake by listening to music he likes rather than listening to music you like and he hates?

Secondly, while there are two judgments here, I am asking you about the first one - what musical style do you think you should listen to, or rather what musical style do you like? Why do you judge music by one standard - the subjective preference of the individual who will be listening to it, i.e. yours, while believing that there is no one standard to judge music by?

Are you saying I should judge each individual (including myself) by multiple, contradictory standards to remain consistent with believing "there is no one standard to judge music by?" There is no one standard to judge everyone's musical choices by. Each individual must be judged by one consistent standard, but the standard is subjective to the individual being judged and, therefore, there end up being multiple standards when taking everyone in the world into account. Johnny should not be seen as making a mistake when he doesn't listen to classical music because there is no objective standard and Johnny does not like classical music.

What you think is good music. While we are here, are "what music is good" the really same thing as "what music should I listen to" to you? While one trivially implies the other, I don't think they mean the same thing.

It would depend on the definitions. If you want to clarify the difference you see and how this might be adding to our disagreement, then I'm game.

[Bust Nak]

You think Johnny is making a mistake by listening to music he likes rather than listening to music you like and he hates?

No, I judge what musical style I think Johnny should listen to according to my preference, and my preference is that he listens to the music he likes. He is not making a mistake because he is acting in accordance to my preference.

Sounds to me like you are suggesting that "Bust Nak like classical music" implies "Bust Nak likes Johnny to listen to classical music," which isn't the case.

Are you saying I should judge each individual (including myself) by multiple, contradictory standards to remain consistent with believing "there is no one standard to judge music by?"

No. I specified what you think is good music in the last post. I am saying you shouldn't judge music by your own standard to remain consistent with believing "there is no one standard to judge music by;" given that the premise "there is no one standard to judge people's opinion by" somehow implies "one should not judge people's opinion by one's own standard."

There is no one standard to judge everyone's musical choices by...

Not talking about everyone else's music choices but what you think is good music. Could it be that you actually believe there is only one standard to judge music by?

Each individual must be judged by one consistent standard, but the standard is subjective to the individual being judged and, therefore, there end up being multiple standards when taking everyone in the world into account. Johnny should not be seen as making a mistake when he doesn't listen to classical music because there is no objective standard and Johnny does not like classical music.

Yes, but the question is, given that there are multiple standards, which standard are you using to make this claim? Why did you pick this particular standard over others?

I would make this claim that Johnny is not making a mistake based on my own standard, I pick it because it's trivially true that the standard I use to judge/appraise is the standard I use, I couldn't have picked any other.

It would depend on the definitions. If you want to clarify the difference you see and how this might be adding to our disagreement, then I'm game.

Try this scenario, I like classical music, but I should not listen to it now because we are in a car and others prefer rap. Clearly what music I like need not be what I should listen to. This is a side point though. I don't want to derail what we have going above.

[The Tanager]

He is not making a mistake because he is acting in accordance to my preference.

He's acting in accord with one of your preferences (listening to music he likes) but not another of your preferences (listening to music you don't like). When it comes to analyzing morality, there seems to be only one preference under consideration: morally acting in a way that you like. Where did the other go? This seems to betray a key difference between aesthetics and ethics in your thinking. And we come back to why such-and-such is your preference...

No, I judge what musical style I think Johnny should listen to according to my preference, and my preference is that he listens to the music he likes.

Classical music is your preference because you prefer certain sounds, rhythyms, etc. People making music-listening choices based on their preference is your preference because you prefer what? *For me, "people making music-listening choices based on their preference is my preferences because unless there is a fact of the matter that dictates another choice, I value personal freedom and expression of one's own subjective preferences.

Why is it different for you when talking about their music-listening choices versus their moral choices? If it is because harm is being done, then how are you judging that? If "harm" is a subjective preference, then "harm is being done" is a synonym for "I don't like it." If those are synonymous, then you haven't adequately answered why you prefer people following their aesthetic tastes but not their moral tastes.

No. I specified what you think is good music in the last post. I am saying you shouldn't judge music by your own standard to remain consistent with believing "there is no one standard to judge music by;" given that the premise "there is no one standard to judge people's opinion by" somehow implies "one should not judge people's opinion by one's own standard."

...

Not talking about everyone else's music choices but what you think is good music. Could it be that you actually believe there is only one standard to judge music by?

I think you are mixing two judgments I have made together here:

(1) I judge that "I like indie folk music the best." I do believe there is one standard for this judgment: my subjective preferences.

(2) I judge that "indie folk music is not the objectively best music for all people." This judgment is made because I believe that "there is no one standard to judge the objective aesthetic value of music by."

Each individual must be judged by one consistent standard, but the standard is subjective to the individual being judged and, therefore, there end up being multiple standards when taking everyone in the world into account. Johnny should not be seen as making a mistake when he doesn't listen to classical music because there is no objective standard and Johnny does not like classical music.

Yes, but the question is, given that there are multiple standards, which standard are you using to make this claim? Why did you pick this particular standard over others?

My comments you just quoted (and what I'll say next) refer to judgment (2) above. Based on the "standard" that there is no objective fact to aesthetic value, I make the claim that the aesthetic value for Johnny should be based on Johnny's aesthetic preferences.

Try this scenario, I like classical music, but I should not listen to it now because we are in a car and others prefer rap. Clearly what music I like need not be what I should listen to. This is a side point though. I don't want to derail what we have going above.

Oh, yes, I agree there. I have been speaking as though nuances like that are being removed for simplicity's sake.

[Bust Nak]

He's acting in accord with one of your preferences (listening to music he likes) but not another of your preferences (listening to music you don't like).

What relevance is what music I like to listen to, when judging what music Johnny should listen to?

When it comes to analyzing morality, there seems to be only one preference under consideration...

Not so. There are two just like music, 1) whether I like abusing children - equivalent to music I like and dislike, and 2) whether I like people abusing children - equivalent to what music I like Johnny to listen to.

And we come back to why such-and-such is your preference...

And my old answer suffice - there is no accounting for taste, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Classical music is your preference because you prefer certain sounds, rhythyms, etc. People making music-listening choices based on their preference is your preference because you prefer what?

I prefer harmony, happy people.

*For me, "people making music-listening choices based on their preference is my preferences because unless there is a fact of the matter that dictates another choice, I value personal freedom and expression of one's own subjective preferences.

Well there we go, in your own words, you affirm that you judge other people's music taste by your own preference, just like I do with music and morality.

Why is it different for you when talking about their music-listening choices versus their moral choices?

As we can see, it's not different at all.

If it is because harm is being done, then how are you judging that?

By how much I like/dislike harm, in short, according to my own preference.

If "harm" is a subjective preference, then "harm is being done" is a synonym for "I don't like it." If those are synonymous, then you haven't adequately answered why you prefer people following their aesthetic tastes but not their moral tastes.

There is no explaining that any more than you can explain why you prefer certain sounds and rhythms over other sounds and rhythms. Suffice to say I like people making music, I don't like people abusing children.

I think you are mixing two judgments I have made together here:

(1) I judge that "I like indie folk music the best." I do believe there is one standard for this judgment: my subjective preferences.

That's what I am talking about. I am not referring to the other judgement at all. So you do believe there is only one standard for judging music. That changes things quite a bit. In light of this way of thinking, there is only one standard for judging morality: my subjective preference.

(2) I judge that "indie folk music is not the objectively best music for all people." This judgment is made because I believe that "there is no one standard to judge the objective aesthetic value of music by."

I do the same for music and morality.

My comments you just quoted (and what I'll say next) refer to judgment (2) above. Based on the "standard" that there is no objective fact to aesthetic value, I make the claim that the aesthetic value for Johnny should be based on Johnny's aesthetic preferences.

That is inconsistent with your earlier statement, you said people making music-listening choices based on their preference is your preferences because you value freedom.

[The Tanager]

A. First, your possible inconsistency:

What relevance is what music I like to listen to, when judging what music Johnny should listen to?

I agree it isn't relevant (because we both think aesthetic value is subjective). But, in contrast, the moral action you like to perform is relevant to you when you are judging what moral action you think Johnny should perform. That's the inconsistency.

And we come back to why such-and-such is your preference...

And my old answer suffice - there is no accounting for taste, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Classical music is your preference because you prefer certain sounds, rhythyms, etc. People making music-listening choices based on their preference is your preference because you prefer what?

I prefer harmony, happy people.

I agree that, eventually, there is no accounting for preference. My point has been that we've got to analyze things at that point. We analyze your preference as "I prefer harmony, happy people," and not your preference as "I like people making music-listening choices based on their subjective preferences." We analyze your preference that "I prefer people not being harmed," (or however you think it is best phrased) and not your preference that "I don't like people making moral choices based on their subjective preferences."

If it is because harm is being done, then how are you judging that?

By how much I like/dislike harm, in short, according to my own preference.

If "harm" is a subjective preference, then "harm is being done" is a synonym for "I don't like it." If those are synonymous, then you haven't adequately answered why you prefer people following their aesthetic tastes but not their moral tastes.

There is no explaining that any more than you can explain why you prefer certain sounds and rhythms over other sounds and rhythms. Suffice to say I like people making music, I don't like people abusing children.

I agree that we are at the "bottom" level of your preference if you mean that you are against certain moral choices because you don't like people experiencing harm. That doesn't answer my objection, though. How do you judge that something is harmful? What standard are you using?


B. Now, onto my possible inconsistency:

*For me, "people making music-listening choices based on their preference is my preferences because unless there is a fact of the matter that dictates another choice, I value personal freedom and expression of one's own subjective preferences.

Well there we go, in your own words, you affirm that you judge other people's music taste by your own preference, just like I do with music and morality.

That's either trivially true or mistaken. If you mean I judge people by my preference of "I like them having freedom in aesthetic choices," then it's trivially true. Of course my judgment is my judgment. If you mean that I judge their musical taste by my preference of musical taste, then it's mistaken because I judge them based on their preference of musical taste. I think you keep mixing up the two kinds of preferences we have been talking about.

My comments you just quoted (and what I'll say next) refer to judgment (2) above. Based on the "standard" that there is no objective fact to aesthetic value, I make the claim that the aesthetic value for Johnny should be based on Johnny's aesthetic preferences.

That is inconsistent with your earlier statement, you said people making music-listening choices based on their preference is your preferences because you value freedom.

They are saying the same thing. I think Johnny should make music-listening choices based on Johnny's aesthetic preference because there is no objective fact about aesthetic value for human nature and I value human freedom in that kind of situation. Since I think there is objective fact about moral value for human nature, I don't think Johnny should make moral choices based on Johnny's subjective moral preferences.

[Bust Nak]

But, in contrast, the moral action you like to perform is relevant to you when you are judging what moral action you think Johnny should perform.

Not sure where you got that from, the moral action I like to perform have zero relevance when I am judging what moral action I think Johnny should perform; just like the music where the music I like to listen to have no relevance when judging what music Johnny should listen to.

I agree that, eventually, there is no accounting for preference. My point has been that we've got to analyze things at that point. We analyze your preference as "I prefer harmony, happy people," and not your preference as "I like people making music-listening choices based on their subjective preferences." We analyze your preference that "I prefer people not being harmed," (or however you think it is best phrased) and not your preference that "I don't like people making moral choices based on their subjective preferences."

Why do any of the intermediate steps matter when it is fundamentally inexplicable?

I agree that we are at the "bottom" level of your preference if you mean that you are against certain moral choices because you don't like people experiencing harm. That doesn't answer my objection, though. How do you judge that something is harmful? What standard are you using?

Child abuse physically hurts the child, mentally damage their development, and affects society as a whole, which in turn directly or indirectly affects me personally. As above, what good are these explanations when a few steps down aren't grounded on anything objective? It's like arguing about our favourite bands.

That's either trivially true or mistaken. If you mean I judge people by my preference of "I like them having freedom in aesthetic choices," then it's trivially true. Of course my judgment is my judgment.

Yep, and I do the same with morality.

If you mean that I judge their musical taste by my preference of musical taste, then it's mistaken because I judge them based on their preference of musical taste.

No, I meant the above, but apparently you think judging them by their preference of musical taste is the same thing as judging them based on your own preference of freedom. Are you sure you aren't the one mixing up two kinds of preferences here?

They are saying the same thing. I think Johnny should make music-listening choices based on Johnny's aesthetic preference because there is no objective fact about aesthetic value for human nature and I value human freedom in that kind of situation.

Johnny's aesthetic preference and your preference for human freedom may give the same verdict, but they are not the same thing at all.

[The Tanager]

But, in contrast, the moral action you like to perform is relevant to you when you are judging what moral action you think Johnny should perform.

Not sure where you got that from, the moral action I like to perform have zero relevance when I am judging what moral action I think Johnny should perform; just like the music where the music I like to listen to have no relevance when judging what music Johnny should listen to.

Why do you think Johnny should not abuse children?

I agree that, eventually, there is no accounting for preference. My point has been that we've got to analyze things at that point. We analyze your preference as "I prefer harmony, happy people," and not your preference as "I like people making music-listening choices based on their subjective preferences." We analyze your preference that "I prefer people not being harmed," (or however you think it is best phrased) and not your preference that "I don't like people making moral choices based on their subjective preferences."

Why do any of the intermediate steps matter when it is fundamentally inexplicable?

Because it tells us why you think the way you do, where the surface statement does not and we are investigating the nature of why you come to certain conclusions and if that tells us anything.

Child abuse physically hurts the child, mentally damage their development, and affects society as a whole, which in turn directly or indirectly affects me personally. As above, what good are these explanations when a few steps down aren't grounded on anything objective? It's like arguing about our favourite bands.

The abuser would say that abusing the child provides benefit to himself and maybe even justice on the child for past sins or something. Perhaps some would say that if parents would use child abuse to instill obedience, that society would be better overall. Now, obviously, I disagree with such a view. But is there objective truth here or not?

That's either trivially true or mistaken. If you mean I judge people by my preference of "I like them having freedom in aesthetic choices," then it's trivially true. Of course my judgment is my judgment.

Yep, and I do the same with morality.

If you mean that I judge their musical taste by my preference of musical taste, then it's mistaken because I judge them based on their preference of musical taste.

No, I meant the above,

That's simple subjectivism, then. Not a judgment at the objectivism v. subjectivism proper level. You keep saying you are saying something more than that, but your answers keep returning to this kind of statement. We need to focus on the extra and stop returning here.

but apparently you think judging them by their preference of musical taste is the same thing as judging them based on your own preference of freedom. Are you sure you aren't the one mixing up two kinds of preferences here?

I don't judge their musical choice on my preference for aesthetic freedom. Because I prefer aesthetic freedom, I judge their musical choice on their preference of musical taste.

Ultimately I think we are disagreeing on terms. If you judge Johnny by your preference (at the objectivism/subjectivism proper level), then you are judging Johnny by something that exists independent of his mind: your mind. That's objectivism to me.

[Bust Nak]

Why do you think Johnny should not abuse children?

Because I prefer that he doesn't do that.

The abuser would say that abusing the child provides benefit to himself and maybe even justice on the child for past sins or something. Perhaps some would say that if parents would use child abuse to instill obedience, that society would be better overall.

That's at all relevant to the objectivism v. subjectivism proper level, and on the simple subjectivism level, it's unless without a common preference as a starting point.

Now, obviously, I disagree with such a view. But is there objective truth here or not?

No, just like music taste.

That's simple subjectivism, then. Not a judgment at the objectivism v. subjectivism proper level. You keep saying you are saying something more than that, but your answers keep returning to this kind of statement. We need to focus on the extra and stop returning here.

But I changed my claim after I finally understood what you meant by simple subjectivism v. subjectivism proper after you affirmed that one can switch between the two on the fly: It is simple subjectivism and not a judgment at the objectivism v. subjectivism proper level. Just as you are not making a judgment at that level when you evaluate Johnny's music taste in the same breath as you affirm there is no one standard to judge music tastes.

I don't judge their musical choice on my preference for aesthetic freedom. Because I prefer aesthetic freedom, I judge their musical choice on their preference of musical taste.

Ultimately I think we are disagreeing on terms. If you judge Johnny by your preference (at the objectivism/subjectivism proper level), then you are judging Johnny by something that exists independent of his mind: your mind. That's objectivism to me.

Okay, but do you acknowledge that is subjectivism to academia?