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]

It's not the same kind of difference. In the ice cream and bitter gourd situations we like and dislike different things. We react consistently to those deeper tastes.

It is the same kind of difference though. In making rap music and child abuse situations we like and dislike different things. We like people making rap music and we don't like people abusing children. We react consistently to those deeper tastes.

You speak of "personal expression" as if it is just one single thing. That's the equivalent accusing people of being inconsistent when they like classical but hate rap. "We like and dislike the same thing: music. We react inconsistently in that deeper taste." I borrowed your exact wordings. You still can't see the 1:1 match?

The way we subjectivists react to it in ethics is just like how we react to it in food or music. We don't want to eat bitter gourds. We don't want to listen to rap or county music. We treat those things as though it is a subjective matter. In the very same sense that we don't want people being able to teach flat earth theory or 2 + 2 = 7. We don't want people being allowed to get away with child abuse. Exactly the same way as though there is no universal, objective fact of the matter.

You treat ethics as if it's mathematic and science, we most certainly don't.

Can you give me a specific example for me to better understand your point?

Graffiti is a prime example. It's art that damages people's properties.

[The Tanager]

It is the same kind of difference though. In making rap music and child abuse situations we like and dislike different things. We like people making rap music and we don't like people abusing children. We react consistently to those deeper tastes.

You speak of "personal expression" as if it is just one single thing. That's the equivalent accusing people of being inconsistent when they like classical but hate rap. "We like and dislike the same thing: music. We react inconsistently in that deeper taste." I borrowed your exact wordings. You still can't see the 1:1 match?

You like and dislike music. What explains that difference? We aren't told. We need to get more specific.

You like classical music and dislike rap music. That these two kinds of music are fundamentally different in at least one way explains the previous difference. They have different names, but they also have more telling differences. You like certain melodies, instruments, rhythms, etc. That these melodies, instruments, rhythms, etc. are fundamentally different explains the previous difference. They are different kinds of music.

-----

You like and dislike personal expression. What explains that difference? We aren't told. We need to get more specific.

You like aesthetic personal expression and dislike ethical personal expression. That these two kinds of personal expression are fundamentally different in at least one way explains the previous difference. They have different names, but they also have more telling difference(s). Upon further reflection we see that our dislike of ethical personal expression is also the same as our dislike of personal expression in mathematics and science. Maybe there is something there, like I'm claiming about objectivity. Maybe there isn't. I'm open to hearing alternatives. I don't think you've offered one.

Yes, stealing is different than ice cream. But we are talking about what explains our different reaction to the act of personal expressions. Ice cream is different than music, but we react the same way to personal expression of those tastes. So the 'stealing is different than ice cream' isn't explaining this difference of aesthetic vs. ethic personal expression.

Graffiti is a prime example. It's art that damages people's properties.

We seem to have two things going on, an aesthetic part and an ethical part. Are you against the aesthetic part of graffiti, abstracted out, or the ethical part of graffiti, the damaging of other people's properties, or both? If the exact same art was commissioned, would you be for allowing it's personal expression?

[Dimmesdale]

I really am not sure what the thread of argumentation is at this point in the thread, but I guess I'll just pitch in my thoughts on morality:

I believe morality is intersubjective, grounded in human nature. Morality is not "objective" the way a chicken sandwich is "objective" - that is, "out there" and separate from human cognition. Objective morality would at any rate be meaningless if this were the case. Morality only makes sense when it relates to human subjects and the shared subjectivity we each possess. It is through this shared subjectivity that we can reflect and make moral demands on each other. We all know, through reflection, that some things are wrong. This isn't "objective" - it doesn't have to be. All that is required is a consensus that exists regarding what is right and wrong, through agreement. Not agreement by arbitrary fiat, but by direct perception of what is good - the same way we come to the consensus of what the color red is.

That's what I think at the moment.

[Bust Nak]

You like and dislike music. What explains that difference? We aren't told. We need to get more specific.

Why do you need to be told when you too, like and dislike music. You understand this intuitively yet all of that understanding goes out of the window when it comes to debating morality.

Maybe there is something there, like I'm claiming about objectivity. Maybe there isn't. I'm open to hearing alternatives. I don't think you've offered one.

The alternative cannot be clearer - it's subjective in exactly the same way music and food is subjective, you've presented the above 1:1 in your own words.

Yes, stealing is different than ice cream. But we are talking about what explains our different reaction to the act of personal expressions. Ice cream is different than music, but we react the same way to personal expression of those tastes. So the 'stealing is different than ice cream' isn't explaining this difference of aesthetic vs. ethic personal expression.

Why not? Why is this such a sticking point? Rap is different than country music, but we react the same way. So rap is different to classical isn't explaining this difference of rap vs. classical music?!

We seem to have two things going on, an aesthetic part and an ethical part. Are you against the aesthetic part of graffiti, abstracted out, or the ethical part of graffiti, the damaging of other people's properties, or both?

Just the ethical part.

If the exact same art was commissioned, would you be for allowing it's personal expression?

Yep.

[The Tanager]

Why do you need to be told when you too, like and dislike music. You understand this intuitively yet all of that understanding goes out of the window when it comes to debating morality.

It's not about needing to be told, it's about explaining the difference. I like X and dislike Y is not explaining the difference, but just stating there is a difference.

The alternative cannot be clearer - it's subjective in exactly the same way music and food is subjective, you've presented the above 1:1 in your own words.

Yes, stealing is different than ice cream. But we are talking about what explains our different reaction to the act of personal expressions. Ice cream is different than music, but we react the same way to personal expression of those tastes. So the 'stealing is different than ice cream' isn't explaining this difference of aesthetic vs. ethic personal expression.

Why not? Why is this such a sticking point? Rap is different than country music, but we react the same way. So rap is different to classical isn't explaining this difference of rap vs. classical music?!

No, "rap is different to classical" doesn't explain the difference of rap vs. classical music. It just states there is a difference. That difference is explained by what it means to be different kinds of music (melody, rhythm, etc.) not because different terms are used. You don't like rap because of the musical features, not because it is called 'rap'. It not the terms that explain the difference, it's what those terms represent through the various elements that make up music. Those elements explain you reacting to rap and me to country music differently than we react to classical music.

Aesthetic personal expression is different than ethical personal expression doesn't explain the difference there, it only states there is a difference. That difference is explained by talking about the features of what it means to be different kinds of personal expression.

How do you account for that difference? What is the analogy to melody, rhythm, etc.? It's not things like melody, rhythm, etc. because whether you like the melody or not, you are okay with aesthetic personal expression. So, that difference is not explained by one thing being music and one thing being an ethical act. What explains that difference?

My explanation is as follows. There are various ways to express one's personal tastes: music, food, art, stealing, abuse of children, mathematical truths, scientific truths, etc. In the aesthetic kinds we like freedom of personal expression because we don't believe there is an objective taste everyone should have. In math and science we don't like freedom of personal expression because there is an objective truth for everyone. When we look at ethical situations we find that we don't like freedom of personal expression. We treat the personal expression in ethics as though it were like math and science. It makes sense to me that this treatment is in line with viewing something as objective, not subjective. But I'm open to an alternative explanation.

Saying "it's subjective in exactly the same way music and food is subjective" doesn't seem to work. Personal musical expression is subjective in the sense that we let people express their musical self regardless of how we personally feel about that kind of music. We do not let people express their ethical self regardless of how we personally feel about that kind of ethical act, though.

We seem to have two things going on, an aesthetic part and an ethical part. Are you against the aesthetic part of graffiti, abstracted out, or the ethical part of graffiti, the damaging of other people's properties, or both?

Just the ethical part.

If the exact same art was commissioned, would you be for allowing it's personal expression?

Yep.

Well, then damaging other people's property (even through art) is not an aesthetic case, but an ethical one. That counters what you said in post 307: that you don't allow freedom of personal expression in some aesthetic cases, because it's not the art you are objecting to, but the destruction of another's property.

[The Tanager]

I believe morality is intersubjective, grounded in human nature. Morality is not "objective" the way a chicken sandwich is "objective" - that is, "out there" and separate from human cognition. Objective morality would at any rate be meaningless if this were the case. Morality only makes sense when it relates to human subjects and the shared subjectivity we each possess. It is through this shared subjectivity that we can reflect and make moral demands on each other. We all know, through reflection, that some things are wrong. This isn't "objective" - it doesn't have to be. All that is required is a consensus that exists regarding what is right and wrong, through agreement. Not agreement by arbitrary fiat, but by direct perception of what is good - the same way we come to the consensus of what the color red is.

I'm not following. If the consensus used to be that the earth was flat, was that a direct perception of reality? If it wasn't a direct perception of reality, then what does consensus have to do with this discussion? Consensus would only be relevant when it agrees with direct perception of reality, making direct perception of reality what really grounds the object under study, not consensus. That seems to undermine what you have said about morality above, though.

[Bust Nak]

It's not about needing to be told, it's about explaining the difference. I like X and dislike Y is not explaining the difference, but just stating there is a difference.

We've been through this, that's because there is no accounting for taste. You've already told me that there is no getting out of (and you weren't trying to get out of) this hole of "I like this because I like it."

No, "rap is different to classical" doesn't explain the difference of rap vs. classical music. It just states there is a difference. That difference is explained by what it means to be different kinds of music (melody, rhythm, etc.) not because different terms are used.

Nobody said it was because of the different term used. Pointing out that the melody and rhythm is different is exactly what is meant by "rap is different to classical."

You don't like rap because of the musical features, not because it is called 'rap'. It not the terms that explain the difference, it's what those terms represent through the various elements that make up music. Those elements explain you reacting to rap and me to country music differently than we react to classical music.

You say all this and yet you can't seem to get your head around I don't like personal expression via child abuse because of its features, not because it is called "personal expression via child abuse?" Those elements explain you and I reacting to child abuse differently than we react to people making rap music.

Aesthetic personal expression is different than ethical personal expression doesn't explain the difference there, it only states there is a difference. That difference is explained by talking about the features of what it means to be different kinds of personal expression.

Ah huh, now you are telling me you don't see any difference between personal expression via child abuse and making music, that there are no features that distinguish the two? I don't believe you for one second that you don't already know the answer.

How do you account for that difference? What is the analogy to melody, rhythm, etc.?

One harms a child and the other doesn't. I am amused that you need me to say this as if it isn't obvious. Are you now satisfied that the difference here is the same kind of difference between rap and classical music?

My explanation is as follows...

It's not very interesting. How moral objectivism works is trivial, you don't need to explain your stance, just explain your objection against my stance.

Saying "it's subjective in exactly the same way music and food is subjective" doesn't seem to work.

That's because you've been operating under objectivism for so long without being challenged that you are unable to evaluate the merits of subjectivism without viewing it through the lens of objectivism.

Personal musical expression is subjective in the sense that we let people express their musical self regardless of how we personally feel about that kind of music. We do not let people express their ethical self regardless of how we personally feel about that kind of ethical act, though.

Which is exactly what you'd expect to see if morality is subjective.

Well, then damaging other people's property (even through art) is not an aesthetic case, but an ethical one. That counters what you said in post 307: that you don't allow freedom of personal expression in some aesthetic cases, because it's not the art you are objecting to, but the destruction of another's property.

That's fine, that's why I said there were two ways of looking at things. In post 307, I was operating under the premise that "it is an aesthetic issue when it has to do with an expression of artistic views." With this latest challenge, I take it you want to switch the context to "it is not an aesthetic issue the same way people making rap music is not an aesthetic issue?"

[The Tanager]

We've been through this, that's because there is no accounting for taste. You've already told me that there is no getting out of (and you weren't trying to get out of) this hole of "I like this because I like it."

And I've said that I agree that we don't choose our tastes. I don't mean accounting for why we have one taste over another (although that discussion could be had). I mean analyzing our tastes more in depth to see what else we can learn, if anything.

You say all this and yet you can't seem to get your head around I don't like personal expression via child abuse because of its features, not because it is called "personal expression via child abuse?" Those elements explain you and I reacting to child abuse differently than we react to people making rap music.

I can get my head around that. You misunderstood my point there. It was another attempt to talk about analyzing our tastes more in depth to see what else we can learn, if anything, rather than stopping at "I like X."

Aesthetic personal expression is different than ethical personal expression doesn't explain the difference there, it only states there is a difference. That difference is explained by talking about the features of what it means to be different kinds of personal expression.

Ah huh, now you are telling me you don't see any difference between personal expression via child abuse and making music, that there are no features that distinguish the two? I don't believe you for one second that you don't already know the answer.

I am not telling you that at all. What makes you think I say that in the quote above?

One harms a child and the other doesn't. I am amused that you need me to say this as if it isn't obvious. Are you now satisfied that the difference here is the same kind of difference between rap and classical music?

No, for all the same reasons I've been saying many different ways. Why do you think the child abuser should be kept from acting on their own subjective taste? Because it goes against your subjective taste (i.e., that you don't like things being harmed) in the matter?

Saying "it's subjective in exactly the same way music and food is subjective" doesn't seem to work. Personal musical expression is subjective in the sense that we let people express their musical self regardless of how we personally feel about that kind of music. We do not let people express their ethical self regardless of how we personally feel about that kind of ethical act, though.

That's because you've been operating under objectivism for so long without being challenged that you are unable to evaluate the merits of subjectivism without viewing it through the lens of objectivism.

Then rewrite what I said: "Personal musical expression is subjective in the sense that..."

Personal musical expression is subjective in the sense that we let people express their musical self regardless of how we personally feel about that kind of music. We do not let people express their ethical self regardless of how we personally feel about that kind of ethical act, though.

Which is exactly what you'd expect to see if morality is subjective.

How so?

That's fine, that's why I said there were two ways of looking at things. In post 307, I was operating under the premise that "it is an aesthetic issue when it has to do with an expression of artistic views." With this latest challenge, I take it you want to switch the context to "it is not an aesthetic issue the same way people making rap music is not an aesthetic issue?"

What would you classify making rap music as?

[Bust Nak]

And I've said that I agree that we don't choose our tastes. I don't mean accounting for why we have one taste over another (although that discussion could be had). I mean analyzing our tastes more in depth to see what else we can learn, if anything.

That's fine if you are pursuing this out of interest, but the mere fact that we cannot account for why we have one taste over another is why it's pointless to analyse our taste when the topic in hand is whether banning child abuse because I don't like it, is analogous to tuning to another station because I don't like it.

I can get my head around that. You misunderstood my point there. It was another attempt to talk about analyzing our tastes more in depth to see what else we can learn, if anything, rather than stopping at "I like X."

Why does that matter when you would just stop at "I like X1" plus "I like X2" plus "I like X3" where X = X1 + X2 + X3? What more insight would you gain if you were to push for an extra step and find out that I like X2 because it has the feature X21 and X22 where I like these features? It's just a whole lot more of "I like's" and eventually we would inescapably stop at "I just X221 because I just like X221."

I am not telling you that at all. What makes you think I say that in the quote above?

Because you pointed out the difference in features between rap and classical music in explaining why we treat them different, yet spoke of personal expression of making music and abusing a child as if they should be treated the same.

No, for all the same reasons I've been saying many different ways. Why do you think the child abuser should be punished? Because it goes against your subjective taste (i.e., that you don't like things being harmed) in the matter?

Yes. In the same way, I tune to another station because it goes against my subjective taste (i.e. that I don't like focus on beats over melody) in the matter. What is the difference here beyond the superficial?

Then rewrite what I said: "Personal musical expression is subjective in the sense that..."

Personal musical expression is subjective in the sense that we let people express their musical self because of how we personally feel about that kind of musical act. Just as personal ethical expression is subjective in the sense that we do not let people express their ethical self because of how we personally feel about that kind of ethical act.

How so?

Because it explain why we act different to different music, different food and different personal expressions - the explanation being, we have different taste when it comes to music, food and personal expression.

What would you classify making rap music as?

To borrow your phrasings: There is two things going on, an aesthetic part and an ethical part. I am not against the aesthetic part of making rap music, abstracted out, nor the ethical part of making rap music. If the exact same rap was somehow not to my liking ethically, I would not allow its personal expression.

Consensus would only be relevant when it agrees with direct perception of reality...

Not so, consensus would also be relevant when there is no direct perception of reality to agree or disagree with. i.e where personal opinion are the grounds the object under study. That lines up exactly with what Dimmesdale said about morality.

[Dimmesdale]

I'm not following. If the consensus used to be that the earth was flat, was that a direct perception of reality? If it wasn't a direct perception of reality, then what does consensus have to do with this discussion? Consensus would only be relevant when it agrees with direct perception of reality, making direct perception of reality what really grounds the object under study, not consensus. That seems to undermine what you have said about morality above, though.

There is a consensus even now that the earth appears to be flat from one vantage point. This appearance does not correspond to objective fact, but it is a perception that we can still agree on. In that it has a degree of reality on its own. In my view morality is something similar. If we stick to subjectivity, we can say something is right or wrong because we have similar intuitions about it, the same way humans have a common perception of red qualia, even when that qualia is limited to human cognition, and not strictly speaking objective.