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.

[The Tanager]

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.

Classical and rap are both kinds of music. Those are differences, sure. Music tastes are also different than food tastes. Then there are painting tastes, sport tastes, etc. Then there are ethical tastes. But all the non-ethical tastes are similar in a way that does not occur in regard to ethics. Ethics is unique in that way.

Now, your response to that has been parallel to 'but classical music is unique from rap music.' It's not about uniqueness as uniqueness, but what this particular uniqueness says about things. What it says is that there is something special about ethics that other things don't have. That special thing is that it completely changes how you think about people's freedom to indulge in their personal likes.

[Bust Nak]

Classical and rap are both kinds of music. Those are differences, sure. Music tastes are also different than food tastes. Then there are painting tastes, sport tastes, etc. Then there are ethical tastes. But all the non-ethical tastes are similar in a way that does not occur in regard to ethics.

How? There is nothing truly unique with ethics, as you suggested below, it is as unique from painting tastes as food taste is unique from sport tastes.

That special thing is that it completely changes how you think about people's freedom to indulge in their personal likes.

What makes this any more special than how music taste completely changes how I think about which radio station to listen to?

[Purple Knight]

[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.

Well, most people do view them differently.

Letting someone eat a different kind of lettuce doesn't hurt you, but deciding that murder should be allowed... well yeah, that does hurt you.

The relevant difference between taste in food and taste in ethics is that there is legitimate concern over what people should, or should not, be allowed to do to others.

If you're just doing you, off in your own little corner, I would think that ethics doesn't even come into it.

[The Tanager]

That special thing is that it completely changes how you think about people's freedom to indulge in their personal likes.

What makes this any more special than how music taste completely changes how I think about which radio station to listen to?

I'm not sure it's about one difference needing to be more special than another difference, whatever that means. If food tastes are subjective (in the sense we are discussing), then one should not have a problem with other people indulging in their different food tastes. If moral tastes are subjective (in the sense we are discussing), then one should not have a problem with other people indulging in their different moral tastes. Having a problem with other people indulging in their different moral tastes only makes sense if one thinks moral value is objective.

[Purple Knight]

Having a problem with other people indulging in their different moral tastes only makes sense if one thinks moral value is objective.

Or if you just don't want to be murdered and you invented the morality to justify forcing others not to murder you.

[Bust Nak]

If food tastes are subjective (in the sense we are discussing), then one should not have a problem with other people indulging in their different food tastes. If moral tastes are subjective (in the sense we are discussing), then one should not have a problem with other people indulging in their different moral tastes.

Why would anyone believe that? It makes zero sense. Do you just accept these as axioms without explanation? Or is there some reasoning that lead to from the premise "X is subjective" to "one does not have a problem people indulging in X?"

It's like saying If music tastes is subjective (in the sense we are discussing), then one should not have a problem with listening to rap music. Having a problem with rap music only makes sense if one thinks music taste is objective.

You know this isn't how subjective music taste works, why does this understanding goes out of the window when it comes to other taste?

[The Tanager]

Why would anyone believe that? It makes zero sense. Do you just accept these as axioms without explanation? Or is there some reasoning that lead to from the premise "X is subjective" to "one does not have a problem people indulging in X?"

It's like saying If music tastes is subjective (in the sense we are discussing), then one should not have a problem with listening to rap music. Having a problem with rap music only makes sense if one thinks music taste is objective.

You know this isn't how subjective music taste works, why does this understanding goes out of the window when it comes to other taste?

That's not the same. People have different music tastes. That's simple subjectivism. There is not a(n objectively) 'right' music taste. That's musical subjectivism. Since there is not a 'right' music taste, one should be okay with people listening to whatever they want.

I don't see anything controversial about that last statement. You are okay with people listening to whatever they want. Then you say ethical taste works the same way music taste works. Okay:

People have different ethical tastes. That's simple subjectivism. There is not a(n objectively) 'right' ethical taste. That's ethical subjectivism. Since there is not a 'right' ethical taste, one should be okay with people doing whatever they want.

[Bust Nak]

That's not the same. People have different music tastes. That's simple subjectivism.

That's fine.

There is not a(n objectively) 'right' music taste. That's musical subjectivism. Since there is not a 'right' music taste, one should be okay with people listening to whatever they want.

Why? How do you go from the premise "there is no 'right' music taste" to "one would be okay with other people listening to rap?"

I don't see anything controversial about that last statement.

Same question as before, do you just accept that as an axiom or is there a logic to this?

You are okay with people listening to whatever they want.

Sure, but it's not because there is not an objectively right music taste, but because letting people listen to music aligns with my subjective ethical taste, so the rest of that post seems moot.

[The Tanager]

Why? How do you go from the premise "there is no 'right' music taste" to "one would be okay with other people listening to rap?"

What the shape of the earth is has a right answer. While we let flat earthers maintain their belief, we think they are objectively wrong. Their views should not be taught to children as just as valid as others. We are not okay with that.

If there is no right answer, then people are naturally okay with people not having one particular answer or response.

Sure, but it's not because there is not an objectively right music taste, but because letting people listen to music aligns with my subjective ethical taste, so the rest of that post seems moot.

You have just rephrased things, not explained why you are okay with people listening to whatever they want. You are saying "I'm okay with that because I'm okay with that." Why are you okay with people enjoying their musical tastes?

[Bust Nak]

What the shape of the earth is has a right answer. While we let flat earthers maintain their belief, we think they are objectively wrong. Their views should not be taught to children as just as valid as others. We are not okay with that.

So far so good, but this seems moot since "objectively wrong -> we are not okay" does not imply "not objectively wrong -> we are okay."

If there is no right answer, then people are naturally okay with people not having one particular answer or response.

Natural to whom? Uncontroversial to whom? To moral objectivists only. You say this is natural so I guess you are taking it as an axiom as opposed to a deductive argument? You are reconfirming my earlier charge: you've spent your entire life as an moral objectivist surrounded by other moral objectivists, that's made it all but impossible to understand a system starting from the opposite premise. "If moral is subjective then you cannot criticize other people's action" is an extreme common misconception coming from moral objectivists.

"There is no right answer AND I am okay with people having any one particular answer" is a very different claim to "There is no right answer THEREFORE I am okay with people having any one particular answer." The first is very much uncontroversial, not so for the latter claim.

You have just rephrased things, not explained why you are okay with people listening to whatever they want. You are saying "I'm okay with that because I'm okay with that." Why are you okay with people enjoying their musical tastes?

Asked answered: there is no account for taste; beauty is in the eye of the beholder; because that's how I roll; I am biologically wired that way. All different ways of saying pretty much the same thing. Why are you okay with classical music but not okay with country music? People have different tastes. That's simple subjectivism.