Deviancy in subjective morality

[bluethread]

It has been proposed that morality is subjective and is established over time as certain behaviors are deemed to be counter productive by consensus. If that is indeed the case, then don't deviants provide an important public service by helping to define the limits of acceptable behavior and affecting social change. Given that progressives seem to believe that current morality is always superior to previous morality, aren't today's deviants to be respected as brave pioneers for engaging in antisocial behaviors that may very well become the norm tomorrow?

[Divine Insight]

You are ignoring your own example. You say, "Social laws should be considered only to the extent that they might cause someone harm." That is a statement of morality. Is that just something you say, or do you require society to enact laws according to that moral standard?

I disagree. You are the one who is demanding that this is a "moral standard". That's your judgment call, not mine.

It's merely a matter of practicality that a society should protect its citizens from harm. No moral judgements need to be made at all.

What's the point in even calling it a "society" if the individuals don't look out for the welfare of each other? That wouldn't be a "social group". Instead it would be every man for himself.

I think you are pushing the concept of morality onto things when there is no need to do so.

The mere fact that humans are a social species already implies that they look out for the welfare of each other. If they weren't doing that then what would be the basis for calling them a "social group"?

Just because you claim that looking out for the welfare of others is a moral value in your judgement doesn't make it so.

There are totally secular practical reasons why social behavior makes sense. No moral judgements required.

[Divine Insight]

I have not required anything. I have merely asked how a society that practices subjective morality works. When you say, "Social laws should be considered only to the extent that they might cause someone harm." is that a subjective statement or an objective statement. You are free to say it is either, or both, as long as you can explain your answer.

I would say that it's a statement that is in harmony with the very concept of social behavior and the forming of a society in the first place. The only alternative I can see is to reject that we are social creatures and demand that instead we live based on every man for himself. But I don't think too many people are doing to support that paradigm.

Whether you want to call this behavior subjective or objective is up to you. I'm not sure from which it arose. The social behavior of humans may very well stem from individual subjective choices. And clearly there are some individual humans who are anti-social. Thus suggesting that there is nothing objective to it.

So, how does one use this subjective morality? Is it just a mental exercise?

Each person lives their own life based on their own subjective morality. This is true even if they think they are religious and following some other moral code. If that's the moral code they have subjectively chosen to follow then it's still a form of subjective morality.

Clearly Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, you name it, they each have their own subjective moral codes. They may claim that their moral codes come from their respective religions, but in truth they are still subjective moral codes. They are subjective in that they are choosing which religion to adhere to, and even then they almost always demand their own personal moral interpretations even of those religions.

So I don't see where there exists anything other than subjective morality to even discuss.

You haven't answered that question yet.

Where would you find any morality that isn't already subjective?

Show me the existence of any absolute or objective morality. Where would you find such a thing?

Subjective morality is apparently all that exists.

What makes the protection and safety of the citizens of the society the basis for law?

The mere practical fact that we are social creatures trying to live in a society. Protecting each other is the very basis of the very fabric of social behavior. No morality required.

What of the society that puts laws into place for the protection of the despot, without regard for the protection and safety of the citizens?

That would be a society that places anti-social laws on the books. Why would they do that?

Why shouldn't that be the basis of law?

It wouldn't be conducive to social living.

Aren't those two different moral standards?

Morality has nothing to do with it.

One is social behavior. The other is antisocial behavior.

Judging which his better in term of a concept of morality is a "moral judgement".

Recognizing that social behavior, where the group looks out for all its members, is fruitful, is merely a rational practical observation. Social groups fair better than anti-social groups.

So unless we are anxious to suffer and die from being antisocial, then being social is a more practical productive approach to life. No moral judgements required.

You're trying to force your moral judgement onto things that are merely rationally practical.

~~~~~

And I still want an answer:

Where is there any alternative to subjective morality?

As far as I can see that's all that exists.

Where are you going to come up with any absolute objective morality in any case?

If you can't even produce such a thing, then your questions concerning subjective morality are moot. They are meaningless since that's clearly all that's available to us in any case. We have no choice but to accept subjective morality because that's all that exists. There simply is nothing else to choose.

There is no absolute objective morality to even point to.

You certainly haven't pointed to any yet.

[bluethread]

Yes, I do have a visceral reaction to murder, but that is not the reason it is immoral. I have a visceral reaction to gutting fish, but I do not find it immoral. A visceral reaction may be a factor, but it is not the primary justification. As I said, some may find gutting fish to be immoral, if theirs is a visceral morality.

If you do have a visceral reaction to murder then surely the idea that morality is tied to visceral reaction would cross your mind? I am betting that your reaction to gutting fish does not disgust you the same degree murder would.

I said that could be a factor, but what of the person who does not have a visceral reaction to murder. Can't someone go with their mental subjectivity. For example, it is not uncommon to here, I know it's murder, but it does not feel like murder. This is the case in jury nullification.

I do not have clear answers to those questions. That is why I opened the thread. That said, on what does it depend?

There is no clear answer because the question isn't specific enough. Like I said eariler there is no clear answer as to what a society would do with paintings either, it depends on individual paintings. What does it depends on, it depends on how people feel about each painting.

For example, if a society subjectively finds red to be an immoral color, what is to be done with those who wear red?

Something to discourage the expression of red. As for what that would be exactly, you need to be give more detail with how exactly does the society in question think of the color red.

IF the society thinks those who wear red should be punished by jail time, THEN they will be thrown in jail. IF the society thinks those who wear red should be executed, THEN they will be executed. IF the society thinks those who wear red should be pay extra tax, THEN they will be charged more for red clothes and so on. You know, the same way I would imagine a society which insists that red is an objectively immoral color would operate?

So, in order for murder to become moral, all that is necessary is for people to become desensitized to it?

I still want to know how you envision a society based on subjective moraltiy would look like. You seem to think it would be something that would be totally alien to the typical English speaker.

I would expect it would be rather unpredictable. However, I have not been able to flesh one out, because every society that I know of holds something to be objectively moral or immoral. That may be nothing more than xenophobic myopia, however, for the members of that society it is objective.

[Bust Nak]

I said that could be a factor...

Sure, but you said that after I brought it up, you originally said you've never thought of that, and I found that astonishing.

... but what of the person who does not have a visceral reaction to murder.

Then they wouldn't think murder is immoral.

Can't someone go with their mental subjectivity. For example, it is not uncommon to here, I know it's murder, but it does not feel like murder. This is the case in jury nullification.

Sure, we have such thing as jury nullification, what of it?

So, in order for murder to become moral, all that is necessary is for people to become desensitized to it?

Yep, exactly. Just like how it works in an objective based society: If people are desensitized to murder, they would no longer claim murder is objectively immoral.

I would expect it would be rather unpredictable. However, I have not been able to flesh one out, because every society that I know of holds something to be objectively moral or immoral.

Well, come and see how it works sometimes. It's not that unpredictable. Sure, we've changed 180 degrees from accepting slavery to abolition, from outlawing homosexuality to allowing same sex marriage, or gone from outlawing abortion to having walk-in centers, all in simular time span. We are still talking about decades, slow changes that happen over a life time. You are hardly blindsided by such changes.

That may be nothing more than xenophobic myopia, however, for the members of that society it is objective.

Well, it would be nice if those members would join in with the rest of us.

Now a few things I want to comment on.

So, how does one use this subjective morality? Is it just a mental exercise?

It's no difference to how one uses objective morality. Imagine society A thinks gravity is caused by curvature of spacetime, where as in society B explains gravity with some other phenomenon. Operationally there would be zero difference between the two societies, things aren't going to suddendly fall upwards in B.

What makes the protection and safety of the citizens of the society the basis for law?

To add to what DI have said, here is a clear example of not making morality law - lying in general is not illegal, even though it is considered morally wrong. Only in certain cases where it relate to protection and safety of society is it illegal. I would imagine that's the same in your society.

[bluethread]

I said that could be a factor...

Sure, but you said that after I brought it up, you originally said you've never thought of that, and I found that astonishing.

No, I said I never thought of morality as a visceral reaction, ie. as nothing more than a visceral reaction. That is why I clarified the statement by saying it is a factor.

... but what of the person who does not have a visceral reaction to murder.

Then they wouldn't think murder is immoral.

Can't someone go with their mental subjectivity. For example, it is not uncommon to here, I know it's murder, but it does not feel like murder. This is the case in jury nullification.

Sure, we have such thing as jury nullification, what of it?

It shows the dissonance that often exists between mental subjectivity(this looks like murder) and visceral subjectivity(this doesn't feel like murder). Are there not different forms of subjectivity other than visceral subjectivity that contribute to one's morality?

So, in order for murder to become moral, all that is necessary is for people to become desensitized to it?

Yep, exactly. Just like how it works in an objective based society: If people are desensitized to murder, they would no longer claim murder is objectively immoral.

Not necessarily, this presumes a visceral subjectivism. If all morality is visceral subjective morality, does it make sense to teach people that murder is wrong? Those who have a visceral reaction need not be taught and teaching would be of no use to those who have no visceral response. All one is left with is visceral programming, ie. A Clockwork Orange.

I would expect it would be rather unpredictable. However, I have not been able to flesh one out, because every society that I know of holds something to be objectively moral or immoral.

Well, come and see how it works sometimes. It's not that unpredictable. Sure, we've changed 180 degrees from accepting slavery to abolition, from outlawing homosexuality to allowing same sex marriage, or gone from outlawing abortion to having walk-in centers, all in simular time span. We are still talking about decades, slow changes that happen over a life time. You are hardly blindsided by such changes.

Well, in a truly subjective society couldn't slavery, exclusive conjugal marriage and fetal rights be the subjective social morality? If, as has been argued, all morality is subjective, then would that not prove that such is the case?

That may be nothing more than xenophobic myopia, however, for the members of that society it is objective.

Well, it would be nice if those members would join in with the rest of us.

They might, if you can show that there is a society that has an exclusively subjective moral code. That is what we are examining here.

Now a few things I want to comment on.

So, how does one use this subjective morality? Is it just a mental exercise?

It's no difference to how one uses objective morality. Imagine society A thinks gravity is caused by curvature of spacetime, where as in society B explains gravity with some other phenomenon. Operationally there would be zero difference between the two societies, things aren't going to suddendly fall upwards in B.

You are speaking of an objective reality and subjective perception. This does not speak to morality. Morality isn't about what causes something, it is about how people should act given what causes something. If objective reality tells us that gravitational force is a function of mass and distance, velocity is a function of force applied over distance, and human life should be respected, as you appear to see as a given, then one should not jump off a cliff without a means to counter gravitational force. Is this conclusion an objective or subjective moral standard, and why?

What makes the protection and safety of the citizens of the society the basis for law?

To add to what DI have said, here is a clear example of not making morality law - lying in general is not illegal, even though it is considered morally wrong. Only in certain cases where it relate to protection and safety of society is it illegal. I would imagine that's the same in your society.

That does not address the question. It just shows that in certain societies the protection and safety of the citizens of the society is the basis for law. What about societies where the protection and safety of the despot is the basis for law. Isn't that also a possible subjective morality? If so, then isn't presuming the protection and safety of the citizens of the society as the basis for law establishing an objective morality?

[Divine Insight]

That does not address the question. It just shows that in certain societies the protection and safety of the citizens of the society is the basis for law. What about societies where the protection and safety of the despot is the basis for law. Isn't that also a possible subjective morality? If so, then isn't presuming the protection and safety of the citizens of the society as the basis for law establishing an objective morality?

Why call it "morality"? Why the obsession with this concept?

I've already explained this. Humans are a social animal. Social animals are called social precisely because they cooperate in ways to protect the society as a whole.

We could say that social behavior is an "objective behavior". It's an observable measurable behavior. In that sense being "social" is "objective" in the sense that it's an actual real-world behavior. Why push a concept of "morality" onto it at all?

Can you give reasons why we should deem social behavior to be more highly moral than a group where despots are the basis for their laws? In fact, that very concept is an oxymoron anyway. A group where despots are the basis for laws would not be a "society". On the contrary it would be an anti-social group. They most likely would have never gotten together to make such laws in the first place.

All you are doing is looking at social behavior and calling that "morality".

What about the bees in a hive? Are they then highly moral creatures? According to you they must be because they have a social structure that is based on what serves the society.

All you are doing is judging social behavior to be more "highly moral" than non-social or anti-social behavior. But that's just a subjective judgement on your behalf.

You seem to be determined to push "morality" into the picture whether it objectively exists or not. Secularists have no need to even bring a concept like morality into the picture. Everything can be explained without it. It simply isn't required.

Moreover, even if you were to claim that such a thing as objective morality exists how could it be determined?

Who is to say that a society that takes care of all its citizens is innately any more moral than a group of people who favor despots?

To choose one over the other as being more "highly moral" ends up being nothing more than a subjective opinion anyway.

Any arguments that it's clearly "highly moral" because it result in less harm to individuals goes right back to your concern with who decides that "harm" is somehow immoral?

You seem to be taking a lot of moral concepts for granted to begin with.

[bluethread]

Who is to say that a society that takes care of all its citizens is innately any more moral than a group of people who favor despots?

To choose one over the other as being more "highly moral" ends up being nothing more than a subjective opinion anyway.

That is my point. That is the problem with a truly subjective morality. I am just asking how this is resolved without establishing one or the other as a given? Then, if one or the other can be established, on a subjective basis, on what basis does one resolve conflicts between various personal moralities? It is all well and good to say that every individual has their own subjective sense of morality, but how is one then justified to impose their personal sense of morality on another when there is a conflict?

[Bust Nak]

No, I said I never thought of morality as a visceral reaction, ie. as nothing more than a visceral reaction. That is why I clarified the statement by saying it is a factor.

I see. But I wouldn't say it's nothing more than a visceral reaction either, I would simply call it a feeling, some stonger than other, strong enough to be labelled as visceral reaction.

It shows the dissonance that often exists between mental subjectivity(this looks like murder) and visceral subjectivity(this doesn't feel like murder). Are there not different forms of subjectivity other than visceral subjectivity that contribute to one's morality?

It is just what it feels like that matters. What it looks like does not contribute to morality directly, but only in the sense that what it looks like would obviously affects what it feels like.

Not necessarily, this presumes a visceral subjectivism.

No, it presumes public acceptance changes over time, an presumption that is well supported by historical observation. That much, I am sure you would agree is fact. What is debatable whether acceptance is the whole of morality itself, or mere preception of some underlying truths.

If all morality is visceral subjective morality, does it make sense to teach people that murder is wrong?

Sure, it makes perfect sense to do what you can to stop what is really revolting to you, no?

Those who have a visceral reaction need not be taught and teaching would be of no use to those who have no visceral response. All one is left with is visceral programming, ie. A Clockwork Orange.

It not be as extreme as that, I already mentioned that I get my moral rules from a combination of instinct which needs not be taught, AND upbringing and other social conditioning which is taught.

Well, in a truly subjective society couldn't slavery, exclusive conjugal marriage and fetal rights be the subjective social morality? If, as has been argued, all morality is subjective, then would that not prove that such is the case?

It could, And it was, it just is no longer the case. There is no reason why it must remain the case, if that's what you were suggesting.

They might, if you can show that there is a society that has an exclusively subjective moral code. That is what we are examining here.

I don't think there is one that is exclusively subjective, I can however point you to any Western country (or indeed any society where lying is considered wrong but not officially outlawed) and it would be one that is somewhat subjective, would that do?

You are speaking of an objective reality and subjective perception. This does not speak to morality. Morality isn't about what causes something, it is about how people should act given what causes something. If objective reality tells us that gravitational force is a function of mass and distance, velocity is a function of force applied over distance, and human life should be respected, as you appear to see as a given, then one should not jump off a cliff without a means to counter gravitational force. Is this conclusion an objective or subjective moral standard, and why?

There is two things here. I am saying there IS of an objective reality about morality - it is either subjective or it isn't; just as gravity is either caused by curvature in spacetime or it isn't. AND subjective perception - I see morality as subjective and you see it as objective; just as post-Einstein scientists see gravity as curves and eariler scientists see gravity as a classical force. (The difference here is that curves vs force is not collectively exhaustive, it may not be either; where as subjectivism vs objectivism is, it has to be one or the other.)

What I am NOT saying is objective reality tells us human life should be respected, it is far from given. In fact I actively deny such a time. Objective reality does not tells us any "should" or "ought" at all.

That does not address the question. It just shows that in certain societies the protection and safety of the citizens of the society is the basis for law. What about societies where the protection and safety of the despot is the basis for law. Isn't that also a possible subjective morality?

Yes. It is a possible subjective morality.

If so, then isn't presuming the protection and safety of the citizens of the society as the basis for law establishing an objective morality?

No, it's establishing an subjective morality that happens to be the general consensus. Think beauty contests, I hope you'd agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and yet such contests do come up with a winner. The judges came up with a winner without presuming there is some objective beauty as basis, all they need is their own personal taste, and an awareness of public taste.

That is my point. That is the problem with a truly subjective morality.

It's not a problem but a feature.

I am just asking how this is resolved without establishing one or the other as a given?

Any number of ways, for example, by establishing one or the other as a consensus.

Then, if one or the other can be established, on a subjective basis, on what basis does one resolve conflicts between various personal moralities?

Any number of ways, for example, by appealing to rationaity.

It is all well and good to say that every individual has their own subjective sense of morality, but how is one then justified to impose their personal sense of morality on another when there is a conflict?

Does one need any more justification than "it is the right thing to do?"

[Divine Insight]

It is all well and good to say that every individual has their own subjective sense of morality, but how is one then justified to impose their personal sense of morality on another when there is a conflict?

That's my whole point Bluethread.

You are never justified in imposing your personal sense of morality on another.

There is never a time when this can be justified beyond your own personal sense of what you consider to be moral. In other words, just as morality is subjective so is justification. If you subjectively justify pushing your moral values onto someone else then that justification itself is your subjective opinion.

At best all you can hope to do is find a group of people who agree with your subjective sense of morality. And then, as a group, you can all subjectively push your moral values onto others and pat each other on the back subjectively agreeing with each other that you did the "Right Thing".

In fact, this is precisely what happens in wars. The soldiers on each side are nothing more than groups of individuals who have all subjectively chosen that their side holds the higher moral values.

Whoever wins the war wins the right to carry on their own subjective morality (even though the other side sees that morality as being immoral)

[bluethread]

It is all well and good to say that every individual has their own subjective sense of morality, but how is one then justified to impose their personal sense of morality on another when there is a conflict?

That's my whole point Bluethread.

You are never justified in imposing your personal sense of morality on another.

There is never a time when this can be justified beyond your own personal sense of what you consider to be moral. In other words, just as morality is subjective so is justification. If you subjectively justify pushing your moral values onto someone else then that justification itself is your subjective opinion.

Then one can not say that murder is immoral. It might be immoral for one person, but it is not immoral for another. Since the one person can not impose that ones morality onto another, then that one is not justified in stopping the other from committing murder.