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.

[Bust Nak]

I'm not sure I would use the word 'presumption' to describe what I think is your flaw. I don't think you are inconsistent with your own understanding. I think your understanding of the concept is off, so that you think your view is consistent when it is not (just like Socrates thinks Euthyphro's view is inconsistent, but Euthyphro thinks his own view is consistent).

That's exactly the point, my actions are consistent with my views, the same cannot be said for Euthyphro.

I would say that Socrates helped pull out Euthyphro's initial view and then critiqued it in a way to send Euthyphro scrambling into confusion as he tried to maintain his original view.

A position that is sent scrambling into confusing qualify as "not a thing" to me.

From what you've shared, how you act toward other people's music tastes that you dislike is the same way you act toward other people's food tastes that you dislike, both of these being different than how you act toward other people's ethical tastes that you dislike, at least on some ethical issues like child abuse.

Of course it's different, in the first two cases, I do not dislike other people's tastes, the latter one I do dislike. It's no more significant than how I act towards classical music to how I act towards rap music, because I do not dislike classical, while I dislike rap music. Why would you expect anything else?

Concerning music, you react differently when talking about whether you personally indulge or not, but when talking about whether you let others indulge in music you like and music you dislike, there is no difference: whether you personally like it or not, you allow others to indulge in their personal tastes in music. You say that you treat ethical issues the same way you treat aesthetic issues. This is true in talking about whether you personally indulge or not, but seems false when talking about whether you let others indulge in their personal likes.

a) Do I like rap music? No.
b) Do I like it when others indulge in rap music? Yes.
c) Do I like classical music? Yes.
d) Do I like it when others indulge in classical music? Yes.
e) Do I like child abuse? No.
f) Do I like it when others indulge in child abuse? No.

Of course the reaction to a), e) and f) are different to b), c) and d) that's because some I like just fine, while others I don't. Again, this different reaction you see is not significant, and no more inconsistent than tuning my radio away from rap to classical.

You said that you not liking child abuse was an entertainment issue, not an ethical issue. But moral subjectivism says that you not liking child abuse is what ethics boils down to.

Moral subjectivism says it's about me not liking that child abuse is being indulged in.

I disagree. Dealing with musical choices you dislike, if it was analogous to what you do with ethical choices you dislike, would mean banning people from making and listening to rap music...

a) How do you stop listening to rap music because you don't like it? You stop listening to it. (That's what I do.)
b) How do you stop people making rap music because you don't like the fact that rap is being made? You ban it, punish people for it. (I happen to not share this dislike, so I don't act this way.)

c) How do you stop listening to classical music because you don't like it? You stop listening it. (I happen to not share this dislike, so I don't act this way.)
d) How do you stop people making classical music because you don't like the fact that rap is being made? You ban it, punish people for it. (I happen to not share this dislike, so I don't act this way.)

e) How do you stop abusing child because you don't like it? You stop abusing them. (That's what I do.)
f) How do you stop people abusing children because you don't like the fact that children are being abused? You ban it, punish people for it. (That's what I do.)

There is a direct correspondence with the a) and b) pair with the c) and d) pair; same with the e) and f) pair. That I don't want rap music banned while I do want child abuse banned is not because of any inconsistency, but because I happens to be fine with one but not the other, which is no more significant than me tuning my radio away from rap to classical.

and you haven't directly said it, but probably whether they are around you or not (i.e., you want the abuser you know nothing about to stop abusing the child you know nothing about).

Yeah, if I happens to feel the same way about people making rap music as I do about people abusing children.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 271 by Bust Nak]

I have nothing new to say and no new way to say what I've already said. I think your defense is semantics and does not meet my critique. You disagree.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 272 by The Tanager]

Let me try to help you drill down where you disagree then:

a) The natural reaction to a piece of music you don't like when it comes on the radio, is to not to listen to it, say by tuning to another station.

b) The natural reaction to a food stuff you don't like, is to not eat it, say by throwing it in the bin.

c) The natural reaction to someone doing something you don't like, is to stop them, say by physically restraining them.

Which of these, if any, do you disagree with?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 272 by The Tanager]

Let me try to help you drill down where you disagree then:

a) The natural reaction to a piece of music you don't like when it comes on the radio, is to not to listen to it, say by tuning to another station.

b) The natural reaction to a food stuff you don't like, is to not eat it, say by throwing it in the bin.

c) The natural reaction to someone doing something you don't like, is to stop them, say by physically restraining them.

Which of these, if any, do you disagree with?

Thank you for continuing to try to help me explore your view here. I think (a) and (b) address a different element of our reaction to a kind of action than (c) does. I think both are needed for a full explanation of the issue. Parallel to (a) and (b), I would say is:

c') The natural reaction to an ethical choice you don't like, when you are presented with an opportunity to perform it, is to not perform it, say by not picking up that gun.

But we must still account for your (c) above. I would do so in this way:

1) The natural reaction to someone else wanting to listen to the piece of music you don't like when it comes on the radio, is to be fine with them not tuning to another station.

2) The natural reaction to someone else wanting to eat a food stuff you don't like when it is presented to them, is to be fine with them not throwing it in the bin.

3) The natural reaction to someone else wanting to make an ethical choice you don't like, when they are presented with an opportunity to perform it, is to NOT be fine with them performing it, say by keeping them from picking up that gun.

While I see (a), (b), and 'my' (c) as all similar, (3) is not similar to (1) and (2).

But you'll want to phrase it differently. You'll want to treat (a) and (1) as two separate things, rather than two parts of the same thing. To you, (1) should be worded more like: "The natural reaction to someone doing something you like [i.e., listening to the music of their choice] is to be fine with them not tuning to another station." So that (1) is a "like" and (3) is a "dislike" and we should expect different kinds of reactions concerning our likes and dislikes.

But even if I accept this phrasing, I still have the question of why you like people's freedom in aesthetic tastes, but not in (at least some) ethical tastes. There must be something different about ethics than aesthetics for this to occur.

[Bust Nak]

c') The natural reaction to an ethical choice you don't like, when you are presented with an opportunity to perform it, is to not perform it, say by not picking up that gun.

That's fine. It's just an instantiation of C where that "someone" is yourself.

1) The natural reaction to someone else wanting to listen to the piece of music you don't like when it comes on the radio, is to be fine with them not tuning to another station.

2) The natural reaction to someone else wanting to eat a food stuff you don't like when it is presented to them, is to be fine with them not throwing it in the bin.

In short, the natural reaction to someone doing something you are fine with, is to let them do it.

3) The natural reaction to someone else wanting to make an ethical choice you don't like, when they are presented with an opportunity to perform it, is to NOT be fine with them performing it, say by keeping them from picking up that gun.

In short, the natural reaction to someone doing something you are not fine with, is to stop them from doing it.

While I see (a), (b), and 'my' (c) as all similar

So far so good. I see them as fundamentally the same as (3).

(3) is not similar to (1) and (2).

I too agree here.

But you'll want to phrase it differently. You'll want to treat (a) and (1) as two separate things, rather than two parts of the same thing. To you, (1) should be worded more like: "The natural reaction to someone doing something you like [i.e., listening to the music of their choice] is to be fine with them not tuning to another station." So that (1) is a "like" and (3) is a "dislike" and we should expect different kinds of reactions concerning our likes and dislikes.

Exactly. Although I wouldn't necessarily call it separate, me liking classical music and hating rap music can be said to be two parts of the same thing - my taste in music.

But even if I accept this phrasing, I still have the question of why you like people's freedom in aesthetic tastes, but not in (at least some) ethical tastes. There must be something different about ethics than aesthetics for this to occur.

The same kind of difference in classical music and rap; in bitter gourd and ice-cream. Somethings I am find with, others I am not. Whether people should be allowed freedom in aesthetic taste is an ethical issue, isn't it?

[The Tanager]

The same kind of difference in classical music and rap; in bitter gourd and ice-cream. Somethings I am find with, others I am not. Whether people should be allowed freedom in aesthetic taste is an ethical issue, isn't it?

Yes, but you still aren't accounting for why you naturally dislike those who act on different ethical tastes than you, while, at the same time, you naturally like those who act on different aesthetic tastes than you. That difference speaks to a difference between aesthetics and ethics.

[Bust Nak]

Yes, but you still aren't accounting for why you naturally dislike those who act on different ethical tastes than you, while, at the same time, you naturally like those who act on different aesthetic tastes than you. That difference speaks to a difference between aesthetics and ethics.

There is not accounting for taste, I naturally dislike rap music while at the same time I naturally like classical music. It's the same difference between aesthetics and ethics.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 277 by Bust Nak]

That you like classical music and not rap music says something about you. That you like allowing people to follow their aesthetic tastes and not their ethical tastes says something about you. It also says something about the difference between ethics and aesthetics that you see. They are different kinds of things in that way. Different in a way that different aesthetic likes are not different. If they were the same, then you'd be fine allowing people to follow their tastes in either case. Food taste and music taste are different things, but you like allowing those freedoms the same, which speaks to how you view aesthetic things in general. And that is differently than you view ethical things.

[Bust Nak]

There needs to be an accounting for why your (and most, if not all, people) personal taste about people acting on their personal likes is so sharply different based on whether it is something aesthetic or ethical.

But it's not sharply different though. The range of difference between how I feel about individual ethical issues is probably wider than the difference in how I feel about aesthetic issues vs ethical issues.

That you like classical music and not rap music says something about you.
That you like allowing people to follow their aesthetic tastes and not their ethical tastes says something about you. It also says something about the difference between ethics and aesthetics.

So what? There is also a difference between classical and rap. They are different kinds of things. If they were the same then I would be fine with listening to rap as I am fine with classical music. I am fine with stick to a radio station speaks to how you view classical music in general. And that is differently than you view rap.

The difference between aesthetic tastes and ethical tastes isn't any more significant.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 279 by Bust Nak]

I reworded my previous post after you looked at it and responded. Sorry about that, but treat that as my latest response.