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?

[bluethread]

I want to point out again that I am not talking about feeling good about yourself for helping someone, but feeling that it is right to help someone. And if you do tell me you don't know what feeling right is, then I can no more explain it you than I can explain what sweet taste like to someone who haven't experienced it.

OK, you know it when you see it.

Later, that may be nuanced by the parents' subjective morality, but that is a matter of one person imposing their morality onto another person. DI says this should never happen. What do you think?

I think I have a moral duty do whatever is right, and that include imposing morality onto another.

Noted.

The fact that objects within the earth's atmosphere fall unless an upward force greater than the force of earth's gravity and atmosphere is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of physics.

And in the same way, the nature of morality, is not a matter of choice, it's a matter of philosophy. It either is objective, or it is subjective. No choice involved at all.

I don't see why there can't be general objective morality and subjective morality in the interpretation, but I guess that's just me.

I am making a distinction between reason and feelings. Reason is usually based on premises and logic. Feelings are more related to one's comfort level. A good example of the difference is first responders. It feel right to run away from danger, but they run toward danger based on reason.

Sure, but I am not sure why you need to bring that distinction up. I haven't implied reasons and feelings are the same. I stated clearly that one doesn't need to be rational to feel.

Subjective morality is about how something feels, regardless of whether that something is reasonable or not. Got it.

That's all well and good for personal morality, but social morality takes more than that. It requires a persuasive argument and/or personality.

Society needs a consensus, a collective of personal opinion. There are any number of ways of achieving that. Voting is how we do it typically.

So, regardless of how social morality is established, it ids always by consensus. Got it.

Well, though I admit it is not a solution to a problem, there are people who insist that ethical subjectivism is the preferable way to establish social morality.

I don't think I've ever met such people. Every subjectivist I've came across knows what subjectivism is, and hence know it is not something you can put into practice.

The main proponents of ethical subjectivism, at least currently, are the social progressives. However, this appears to be an oxymoron, because as society moves toward one set of moral standards, it moves away from another. Therefore, it is only progressive for those who hold to the morality of those who agree with the first set of moral standards. As the prevalent moral standards "progress", ethical subjectivism becomes less useful and deviancy moves from just being out of style to being reprehensible, ie politically incorrect. So, it appears to me that ethical subjectivism is just a tool for changing moral standards and not a sound basis for establishing moral standards.

Useful? A tool? Basis for establishing moral standards? What you are saying here is totally alien to me. Subjectivism is not something that can be put into practice. Perharps you can point me to these proponents you have in mind?

I am not going to get into detailed discussions of what specific individuals seem to believe or do. Let's just say that I have seen the concept used this way and I will point out your observations the next time I encounter it.

Thanks for the help.

[Bust Nak]

I don't see why there can't be general objective morality and subjective morality in the interpretation, but I guess that's just me.

As in there is some objective morality standard, and we each interpretate it differently? Analogious to blind men feeling an elephant?

If so, that is just a form of objectivism. The elephant is what it is, independant from what the blind men feels.

So, regardless of how social morality is established, it ids always by consensus. Got it.

Just bear in mind that a tyrant who have everyone doing his will by force, is still a kind of consensus.

I don't have anything else to add to the rest of your post.

[Excubis]

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?

Depend on the act itself, if it damages a person physically, their property, or oppresses a way of living that does not damage a person physically or there property. I would contend this as immoral behavior but if it is deviancy that fights against oppression than it is moral and will become moral.

My example is sexual orientation, does being gay hurt you physically or damage your property in any way shape or form. No it does not and therefore should not be oppressed. Morality in my opinion should be solely based on this structure not taking religion, and ideology as a means to ascertain morality. Sex, creed, religion, and ethnicity should never be oppressed and hate propaganda needs to be stood against by all atheist and theist alike. My example for why Christians should not care about homo sexuality and gay marriage follows biblical logic. Did Christ ever say to oppress anyone ever, so therefore if this was so important wouldn't Christ have mentioned it? This should be applied to all things some Christians(not all) fight against. You do not save someones soul by oppression according to Jesus but by love.