Moral subjectivism 101

[Bust Nak]

In this thread, I'll present some of the basic idea in moral subjectivism, a subset of moral relativism, in the form of a Q&A session.

1. Can you say murder is wrong or is everything permitted?
There is no objective set of rules, but that doesn't mean there are no rules. "Murder is wrong" is commonly found as a house rule. Note that while "murder is wrong" may look like an absolute or objective statement, it is equivalent to "murder is wrong according to me" under subjectivism.

2. Who gets the set the rules?
There are two trains of thought, individual subjectivism and cultural subjectivism. The former says the individual makes the rules, the latter says society as a whole make the rules. The basics are the same, as such answers for individual subjectivism can be expand to the culture level as a collection of individuals.

3. How can you say anything is right and wrong without an objective standard?
An objective standard is not required to make moral judgement, any more than an objective standard is required to say a pizza is tasty or disgusting.

4. Doesn't that means you cannot disagree with others' morality?
That depends on how you define disagreement. If I say this pie is tasty and you say it's disgusting, are we disagreeing? If you say that's not a disagreement, then no, moral subjectivists can't disagree with each other. But I suspect most would consider a difference in food taste qualify as a disagreement.

5. If moral is subjective (focusing on the individual for now), can you force another to accept your morals?
That depends on what you mean by force. Can I force a killer to accept murder is wrong? No, not without some form of neurosurgical procedure - as moral is individualistic, we could try and influence him, but ultimately only he can change his own mind.

6. No, I mean how can you justify the use/threat of force on someone who have a different morality to you, such as someone who thinks killing for fun is moral?
There is no requirement to judge someone according to their morality or beliefs, all subjectivism says is morality is dependent on the individual or culture. So if your morality says it's right to lock murders up, then that's the moral thing to do according to you.

7. What if you wake up tomorrow and everyone else decide it's right to murder?
Then it's right to murder according to them. I would resolve this conflict of ideas in simular ways I resolve any other conflict, from ignoring them, to compromise, all the way up to violence if need be.

8. Couldn't you wake up tomorrow and decide it's right to kill for fun for example?
That's not likely because of the underlying biological mechanism at work, which isn't going to flip-flop from day to day; But to answer the question: potentially yes! What is moral depends on what the individual think. If he wakes up one morning and thinks it's right to murder then that's his morality.

9. Isn't that absurd!?
No, we see both from history and other cultures in the world today, how fluid morality can be. Far from a point against subjectivism, this in fact shows how subjectivism coincides with reality.

10. Yet there are some things which seem to universally immoral across different cultures, how can this be if everyone makes their own rules?
That's because of the underlying biological mechanism I mentioned above. The source of our morality is our mind, and we have in board terms, very simular brains. The similarity you see in our morality is the result of the common starting point from empathy.

11. Doesn't that mean some morality can be considered objective?
In a round about way, using certain definitions, yes. But consider this: There are biological reason why human prefer fatty or sweet food, would you then consider ice-cream to be objectively more tasty than a cucumber? I would say no, that is merely stating objective facts about subjective taste.

If you can think of any questions you would like answered, or challenges to (my version of) moral subjectivism, do post them here and I'll try to answer them. Also, do feel free to add to the Q&A. Over to you.

[ReligionSlayer]

The survival of a society is not necessarily a good thing... behaviour that resulted aimed at bringing down the apartheid society of South Africa was, I think, good in 'Platonic' sense but 'bad' for that society.

Obeying the law is - often - 'good' but there are 'bad laws' which it is 'good' to defy. It is a mistake to equate 'good for society' with 'absolute' or 'platonic' good.

Why do you say that?

Am not agreeing or disagreeing, am just wondering what your thoughts are...

[keithprosser3]

I was really following on from this exchange:

So by that logic if the majority of people in a given society likes killing children for fun, then that is the right thing to do in that society? Nothing unjust or objectively wrong with that society?

Other than the fact it is unstable, and unlikely to survive very long??

The second quote rather equates (note not 'equivocates') 'good for society' with 'good in the abstract' . Such deification of 'society' makes me (arch individualist that I am) worry.

[Dantalion]

I was really following on from this exchange:

So by that logic if the majority of people in a given society likes killing children for fun, then that is the right thing to do in that society? Nothing unjust or objectively wrong with that society?

Other than the fact it is unstable, and unlikely to survive very long??

The second quote rather equates (note not 'equivocates') 'good for society' with 'good in the abstract' . Such deification of 'society' makes me (arch individualist that I am) worry.

Yet it is that very same society that allows you to survive or maybe even thrive as an individualist...

[ReligionSlayer]

I was really following on from this exchange:

So by that logic if the majority of people in a given society likes killing children for fun, then that is the right thing to do in that society? Nothing unjust or objectively wrong with that society?

Other than the fact it is unstable, and unlikely to survive very long??

The second quote rather equates (note not 'equivocates') 'good for society' with 'good in the abstract' . Such deification of 'society' makes me (arch individualist that I am) worry.

I still do not get it.

Are you saying that Apartheid is a god is bad thing?

[Bust Nak]

I was really following on from this exchange:

So by that logic if the majority of people in a given society likes killing children for fun, then that is the right thing to do in that society? Nothing unjust or objectively wrong with that society?

Other than the fact it is unstable, and unlikely to survive very long??

The second quote rather equates (note not 'equivocates') 'good for society' with 'good in the abstract.' Such deification of 'society' makes me (arch individualist that I am) worry.

I am pretty sure Goat is a subjectivist. He may well favor actions that are beneficial for society, but all he is is saying here is that the closest thing to the concept of "objectively wrong" is destabilizing for society. I don't see any dification going on.

[keithprosser3]

Goat seemed to be arguing that apartheid was bad because it was an inherently unstable basis for a society, not because Apartheid was inherently evil.

My view is that even if the apartheid systems was stable and sustainable (I note the slave based Roman society endured for hundreds of years) it would none the less be 'evil'.

No doubt there were many White South Africans who did not see apartheid as evil. Whether they were supporting an objective evil or not (I think they were), I wouldn't invite one of them to tea - especially as my wife is a rather attractively dusky Kikuyu!

[Bust Nak]

Goat seemed to be arguing that apartheid was bad because it was an inherently unstable basis for a society, not because Apartheid was inherently evil.

Right, because the concept of inherent evil does not exist under subjectivism, we see it as an absurdity. Saying something is inherently evil, is to say it's evil because it just is.

My view is that even if the apartheid systems was stable and sustainable (I note the slave based Roman society endured for hundreds of years) it would none the less be 'evil'.

Well you do have a reason for thinking slavery is evil, other than it inherently is evil?

No doubt there were many White South Africans who did not see apartheid as evil. Whether they were supporting an objective evil or not (I think they were), I wouldn't invite one of them to tea - especially as my wife is a rather attractively dusky Kikuyu!

I am sure you won't find any here disagreeing with you.

[ReligionSlayer]

Goat seemed to be arguing that apartheid was bad because it was an inherently unstable basis for a society, not because Apartheid was inherently evil.

My view is that even if the apartheid systems was stable and sustainable (I note the slave based Roman society endured for hundreds of years) it would none the less be 'evil'.

No doubt there were many White South Africans who did not see apartheid as evil. Whether they were supporting an objective evil or not (I think they were), I wouldn't invite one of them to tea - especially as my wife is a rather attractively dusky Kikuyu!

The problem with apartheid in South Africa was that is was the norm at the time. If you look at the US, England, Australia, etc, they only got rid of it in the 60'ties. Not very long before South Africa.
What made this worse was that South Africa was singled out and the word 'apartheid' was associated with South Africa, even though this same practice was well alive (and still is today) in many of the other developed countries.
Another issue that people seem to miss is that it actually came from the English, and not from South Africa (or their government). The Christian Churches forced this into the SA government, similar to their successes in the USA, England, Aust, etc.


South Africa hold onto apartheid only some 20 years longer than the USA and England. During this time there was a quite some collaboration between these countries, even though it was so called sanctions. Even in the 70'to the SA currency was higher than the US $. (This was due to the mining there and the self-sufficiency resulting out of sanctions).


Mandella himself admitted that the worst thing he ever did was not to tell people to use condoms. He is indirectly responsible for millions of people getting AIDS/HIV. And never forget, he was guilty of his crimes. He was not sentenced due to apartheid or because he was black. He was sentenced because he was against the government, blew up stuff, advocated communism, etc. The USA was fighting the cold war then (against the USSR) and was the force that provided the evidence for Mandella's conviction. Madella was prosecuted due to evidence provided by the USA, they requested his trial - it was not South Africans or the government. But my guess is that the Christian Churches were happy when he was sentenced.



Sure, apartheid is not good, I will never argue it is. But you have to look at the history, the circumstances, and the external factors, before you blaming the South African people, in particular the white people. You have to factor in Religion, as that has, and still do, have a major impact on apartheid, sexists, woman & gay & abortion rights world wide The irony is that SA now have reverse apartheid (or just call it apartheid against whites, colourds, Indians and Asians).


My two cents, having read this history.

[instantc]

3. How can you say anything is right and wrong without an objective standard?
An objective standard is not required to make moral judgement, any more than an objective standard is required to say a pizza is tasty or disgusting.

So that's it? I like soup, you don't like soup. I like killing children for fun, you don't like killing children for fun. Isn't there something you are ignoring? While with the taste of soup you acknowledge that it suits you personally, but doesn't your intuition or moral compass or something say that murdering people for fun is actually wrong, whereas soup is not actually tasty or disgusting. After all, you wouldn't force your neighbor to eat your favorite soup because you think it's delicious, but you would force him not to kill his family for fun, even if all of them agree that killing is cool.

How about this. You think killing children is fun, just because, but the majority of society thinks it does not, and needs to protect itself against you by locking you up for the rest of your natural life to protect itself against you.

So by that logic if the majority of people in a given society likes killing children for fun, then that is the right thing to do in that society? Nothing unjust or objectively wrong with that society?

Other than the fact it is unstable, and unlikely to survive very long?? A psychopathy society like that has traits that will insure disintegration of the society, and will filter itself out of the gene pool very quickly.

One of the evolved traits that social animals develop is something called 'EMPATHY'. That is a survival trait. The evolved trait of empathy, and the principle of 'enlightened self interest' are survival traits that stabilize and help promote societies survival.

Now, it might be argued that a societies survival doesn't matter.. but that is the function that helps decide what society is around.

So would you argue that if somewhere in the future a society of rapists, thieves and psychopaths is more likely to survive than a society of honest and kind people, then the former is in fact a better society in the moral sense of the word?

[keithprosser3]

Another issue that people seem to miss is that it actually came from the English, and not from South Africa (or their government).

I won't claim the English are blameless, but don't forget the Dutch had a lot to do with it too!

I am sure you won't find any here disagreeing with you.

But they do disagree with my thinking that slavery and apartheid are bad is more than just an opinion!