The Tanager wrote:
You are still missing my point. Acknowledging that humans have different opinions on what they think should constitute morality is NOT subjectivism; one is simply noting that different opinions exist. Subjectivism is a positive view that there is no objective way to judge one of those different opinions as correct over another. You are treating "different opinions on 'moral' issues exist" and "subjectivism" as synonyms, when they are not. Subjectivism takes "different opinions on 'moral' issues exist" a step further, making a claim about their truth value. If they are not synonyms, then the truth of "different opinions exist" does not equate to the truth of subjectivism.
I don't disagree with any of this. However, my position on subjectivism would be precisely the same anyway.
My position is that there is no evidence for any moral concept beyond human subjective opinions that would constitute objective morality. So I agree with subjectivism as described in your words above: "
there is no objective way to judge one of those different opinions as correct over another."
I agree with subjectism whole-heartedly. For example, what objective evidence can be produced to claim that it's objectively wrong to torture babies?
People might wonder how any human could say such a thing. But the truth of the matter is that humans are the one's who subjective find this to be appalling. An alligator that's chewing on a human baby doesn't seem to be concerned with the babies discomfort.
Now you might argue that we can "
define" morality in terms of only applying to creatures like humans who have enough sentience and awareness to recognize and know that this is not comfortable for the baby. And we can even claim that it's "good" that they should feel empathy for the baby, and "bad" not to.
But all of that was still nothing more than human subjective opinions. You can hardly point to human constructed ideals of morality as being '
objective'.
So I argue that morality as a human subjective construct is actually the very same thing as subjectivism. So while you would like to imagine a philosophical distinction, I claim that in reality there can be no such meaningful distinction.
The only way you could claim that there are absolute objective concepts of right or wrong is to turn back to objectivism. You'd need to claim that concepts of absolute right and wrong exist even if humans didn't exist. But I continue to ask where is there any evidence for such an ideal?
So morality as a human subjective construct and subjectism actually go hand-in-hand. You see a philosophical difference. I don't.
The Tanager wrote:
That is why, without any scientific evidence for the shape of the earth, physical subjectivism would still not be a rational belief (at least for that reason alone). That we have "different opinions" is not a good reason to believe there is no objective shape to the earth. In exactly the same way, that we have "different opinions" is not a good reason to believe subjectivism is true.
But now you're cheating yourself.
You are appealing to a "physical reality" as an argument for objective morality that has no physical reality.
In other words, you are fully accepting that the earth physically exists. And then trying to argue that this would then force subjectivism to become "
physical subjectivism" (Your phrase from your quote above).
But how is that argument supposed to work? You're pointing to a physical earth in an attempt to make a case for a physical objective morality that you cannot point to.
Your entire analogy with the earth fails instantly. Why do we even need to have subjective opinions about the shape of the earth when we can physically measure it?
Arguments that there exist irrational people who refuse to accept the physical reality that the earth is a globe is meaningless. All this demonstrates is that some humans refuse to be rational, that's all.
It doesn't leave open the possibility that the world could actually be flat, for example. People refusing to accept truth doesn't negate truth.
To continue to use the physical earth as an analogy when addressing a concept of objective morality is futile unless you can also produce a physical objective morality.
Since you haven't been able to do that the analogy makes no sense.
The Tanager wrote:
Noting that the "same moral intuition" here means ONLY that "morality is non-subjective" NOT stuff like "abortion is wrong, female genital mutilation is okay, stealing is wrong, etc.," I will only offer people to be honest with themselves. If you truly think your initial intuition to something like the Holocaust is equivalent to liking different ice cream flavors, then my argument fails for you.
If you can't link your idea of "same moral intuition"to specific moral questions then of what value could it possibly have in a discussion about objective morality?
Other than being a lofty philosophical ideal it has no tangible meaning. In fact, I even argue that it can't even be a meaningful philosophical ideal if it can't be linked to any specific ideas of what should constitute morality. What good is an idea that can't even address the very concepts that it's supposed to be about?
Also, you talk about human intuition against the Holocaust. But apparently all humans were convinced that it was wrong. Have you forgotten about the fact that the Holocaust itself was carried out by humans? Why would those humans have carried out such deeds if they intuitively felt that what they were doing was wrong?
Also you still have the problem of explaining how human morality diverged from this proposed human moral intuition in the first place? Who were the first immoral humans, and how did they become immoral if they intuitively knew better?
[ Begin Religious aside:]
I can't help but point out that even the Bible has humans being betrayed by an external immoral being who lied to the humans causing the humans to think that what they were doing was moral.
I also see that as being an extreme dirty trick to play on humans. If humans weren't capable of falling from grace on their own, then as far as I'm concerned they had already passed the moral test with flying colors. To then send an already evil demon to corrupt them would be an extremely nasty thing to do, IMHO.
[/ End religious aside]
The Tanager wrote:
This premise does not automatically make objective morality true, it simply makes it a simpler, more plausible view than Subjectivism until a defeater (possibly atheism) comes along.
Sure it does. What you are claiming is that there exists a consistent objective morality that all humans are born to intuitively know. That would absolutely require that an objective morality exists. How else would it make any sense?
You want to create a premise that forces a specific conclusion.
The Tanager wrote:
Who is arguing that moral ideals are effective deterrents? I'm not. I was saying there that subjectivists, to be consistent, look at protecting the child from the priest and allowing the priest to abuse the child as though looking at chocolate ice cream vs. pistachio flavored ice cream. Why try to stop pistachio ice cream lovers just because you don't like pistachio ice cream?
Because humans don't subjectively view someone else eating pistachio ice cream as threat to them.
What makes child abuse subjectively disgusting to humans is because humans can empathize with the child's subjective experience. They can imagine how they would subjectively feel if a priest had taken sexual advantage of them when they were young and innocent. So it causes subjective rage to rise up within them. I'm willing to bet that many humans would not only like to judge the priest as being immoral, but they might also obtain some satisfaction from punching him in the face as well.
Have you ever become subjectively enraged because someone is eating pistachio ice cream? Probably not, and the reason is because you don't subjectively feel empathy for the pistachio ice cream.
Human outrage over seeing other humans harmed is fully explained via subjective empathy. All the human is doing is imagining what it would subjectively feel like to be in the victim's place. That's enough to spark subjective rage toward the perpetrator.
No objective morality required.
The Tanager wrote:
How do you decide which questions are moral questions?
We just have terms that different questions fall under (biological, sociological, mathematical, philosophical, moral, etc.). Even saying "polygamy" should be allowed between consenting adults is taking a moral position (as opposed to a biological one). But I still agree some may disagree on what category some actions should be placed in. For instance, one thinks the amount of sleep one gets has a moral dimension in some situations and another disagrees. So what? How does that say anything against any of my claims?
And what's my position?
I take the position that we don't even need the category of "morality" that category itself is a human subjective construct.
You might argue, "
But wait! Are you suggesting that humans shouldn't consider what might be right or wrong?"
No, not at all. I would suggest the first thing we need to do is trash the term '
morality' and start using a more secular term like '
ethics'.
Why? Because the very term 'morality' has already been crucified and nailed to the cross of the Bible.
If we're talking about '
ethics' and someone brings up a topic like polygamy, it's far easier to ask, "
Why should that even be an ethical question?". And then people would need to start coming up with reasons why they feel that polygamy should be considered to be unethical.
But as soon as the term "
morality" is used, then this unleashes the Holy Rollers. They come storming out with the Bible's in hand proclaiming that God hates polygamists and demands that marriage is between one man and one woman. And may God have mercy on their souls should they ever decide they can't stand each other and decide to get a divorce!
I mean seriously. The very moment the term "
morality" comes up the Bible Freaks take to the airwaves.
It's no longer about what humans might decide should be ethical or unethical. It becomes all about what some jealous dictator God has to say about these things in a book written thousands of years ago by an obviously barbaric and male-chauvinistic culture.
The very term "
morality" has thousands of years of religious dogma behind it. I say it's time to move on and start talking about secular ethics.
Ethics based on sound human arguments. Not based on ancient religious folklore.
Just as I pointed out above, even secular subjective humans are going to be making ethical rules against child abuse, but not against eating pistachio ice cream.
We need to learn to look at these things from a subjective perspective. What's wrong with polygamy if everyone in the relationship is consensual and no one is being coerced.
You might have a personal dislike for the arrangement, but since no one is being victimized or forced to do it, then there's no need to go into an empathetic rage over it.
So I'm all for human subjective ethics. What I'm not for is morality based on ancient superstitions concerning jealous gods that no one can show even exist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aside note:
By the way, if humans based everything on subjective ethics you would be free to give your arguments for why you believe there are objective reasons to support specific ethical concerns.
And that's the way it should be, IMHO.
The Tanager wrote:
I see this as nothing more than a human subjective opinion on what they imagine a religious fable to mean.
I'll share my human subjective opinions on these very same thoughts below:
I see this as a tangent to this thread. If you don't think so, help me to see the importance of your point as it regards subjectivism vs. objectivism. Then, you will need to show why your interpretation of Christianity far outstrips other intepretations. If you agree it is a tangent, but still want to hear my thoughts on it all, then start a thread and let me know and I'll do so.
I think what I've already said in this particular post helps to address the connection.
The very term "
morality" incites religious ideals on what morality should be base on religious dogma.
There is no escaping this.
The very argument of subjective morality versus objective morality speaks to the same issue.
How can you even take a position on objective morality without including an idea of a "
mind' that is external to humans from which this imagined objective morality has come to be.
You have already suggested that all humans are born with the same moral intuitions. But why should that be the case if there is no "
designer" of humans?
Why should a secular universe create humans that are born with objective moral intuition? As I pointed out above in this post, most of our moral intuition is due to subjective empathy.
Why would we think it's wrong to torture a baby if we can't subjectively empathize with the babies pain?
Most people don't even like to see animals tortured. I don't even like to see creepy crawly bugs tortured. I try to kill them in one feel swoop and feel bad if I miss and see them squirming in pain from an indirect hit.
One could argue that subjective empathy is an "
objective quality" of most humans. Unfortunately we have discovered that this isn't even true of all humans. And also that different humans exhibit different levels of subjective empathy.
So even human empathy can't be said to be objective. Some humans have it, other's don't. And those who have it appear to exhibit it to different degrees.
But yeah, how could there even be such a thing as objective morality if there is no master "
Objective Moral Agent" who decides what objective morality should be?
In the end I don't see how any questions of "
right or wrong' can make any sense at all unless a conscious mind has subjectively passed these judgements.
So since human subjective opinions are all we have to work with why not create an ethical system based on that?
It's not going to be perfect, and it can never be objective. But it can be based as much as possible are practical arguments. That's the best we can do.
But the first thing we need to do is toss religious dogma in the burn barrel. That stuff has no place in any discussion on ethics, IMHO.
Since religion, and Christianity in the west are so passionate about dictating moral concepts based on their Bible I just don't see how it makes any sense to ignore that influence. Especially in any discussions where someone is trying to argue for a concept of objective morality.
Pretending that Biblical morality won't be ushered in at some point in the discussion is naive.
