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]

No, I don't think that is trivial. It just seems to me that you are acting as though your moral opinion is true rather than that your moral opinion is equal to all other moral opinions in truth.

And you think that just because I think my opinion is best, why?

If I were to think that 2+2=4 was my opinion, that 2+2=5 was another opinion, and that opinion is all there is to math, then while I would continue to use 4 in my own calculations, I would be fine with other people using 5 in their calculations and teaching that to others as one opinion among many.

That's your opinion, mine is different, and superior to yours as measured by my opinion. All I said in this thread is as proposed by subjectivism.

You've said that it's different when harm is being done. Child abuse harms the child. But stopping the child abuser is harming the child abuser as well. Either way you act people's personal tastes are being harmed. So, is "harm being experienced" really the distinction that accounts for allowing freedom of personal expression in one field but not another?

No, as I keep telling you, the actual distinction is I personally like one but not the other. Everything else is secondary. What I like and dislike, AKA my opinion is what makes the difference.

you seem to treat them as though they have nothing to do with each other.

That's right, outside of the superficial as in they are both related to music, they don't.

Part of the consideration that goes into whether making rap music is good behavior is tied into what kind of thing "rap music" is...

Right, but that's "rap has these properties" therefore "I dislike it" and "rap has these properties" therefore "I like people making it," rather than "I dislike it" having any bearing on "I like people making it."

In short A->B and A-> C doesn't imply there is any causal relationship between B and C.

But I think the rephrasing is an (unintended) semantic trick that does not properly note the 'different but linked' nature.

What you call semantic is just different perspective. You see things differently, through the lens of objectivism. I don't.

[The Tanager]

And you think that just because I think my opinion is best, why?

For the reasons that I immediately said in the rest of the post. We've had our say in various ways. I still think that when you say stuff like:

No, as I keep telling you, the actual distinction is I personally like one but not the other. Everything else is secondary. What I like and dislike, AKA my opinion is what makes the difference.

that this is what I've called simple subjectivism and is trivial. What distinguishes what you personally like and dislike is noting what you like and dislike, AKA your opinion. Objectivism accepts this as true.

Objectivism and subjectivism proper disagree on whether opinion is all there is. We disagree on what that means. You think my objectivist lens colors what I think that means. I don't think it does. I think you explain it by reverting back to simple subjectivism but claiming you are talking about subjectivism proper. You don't think you do. I've nothing else to say unless, perhaps, you can think of another way to come at it and I'll engage that.

If not, I really do think you for continually trying and hearing me out no matter how frustrating you felt along the way. I admire the way you've gone about our disagreement.

[Bust Nak]

...that this is what I've called simple subjectivism and is trivial. What distinguishes what you personally like and dislike is noting what you like and dislike, AKA your opinion. Objectivism accepts this as true.

That's wasn't the question I was answering. You did not ask me what distinguishes my personally like and dislike, of course it would be trivial that my opinion would distinguishes my personally like and dislike.

Instead you asked me what distinguishes what should and shouldn't be allowed. I was answering that question - my opinion distinguishes what should and shouldn't be allowed. That is not so trivial nor would objectivism accept that as true.

Objectivism and subjectivism proper disagree on whether opinion is all there is. We disagree on what that means.

This much isn't really up for debate - simply look up what academia says about subjectivism, no where does it impose that one treats all opinion as equal or that one tolerate others acting on their opinion. What you are describing is agent relativism. I said that in an earlier post, I don't think you've addressed that, how about you engage this bit before calling it a day?

[The Tanager]

Instead you asked me what distinguishes what should and shouldn't be allowed. I was answering that question - my opinion distinguishes what should and shouldn't be allowed. That is not so trivial nor would objectivism accept that as true.

Is the focus of should/shouldn't here each individual or all individuals besides yourself or everyone?

This much isn't really up for debate - simply look up what academia says about subjectivism, no where does it impose that one treats all opinion as equal or that one tolerate others acting on their opinion. What you are describing is agent relativism. I said that in an earlier post, I don't think you've addressed that, how about you engage this bit before calling it a day?

People in academia use different terms. Here is a quote from Chris Gowans' article on SEP concerning moral relativism (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/):

"The fact that social groups are defined by different criteria, and that persons commonly belong to more than one social group, might be taken as a reason to move from relativism to a form of subjectivism. That is, instead of saying that the truth or justification of moral judgments is relative to a group, we should say it is relative to each individual (as noted above, relativism is sometimes defined to include both positions). This revision might defuse the issues just discussed, but it would abandon the notion of intersubjectivity with respect to truth or justification—what for many proponents of MMR is a chief advantage of the position. Moreover, a proponent of this subjectivist account would need to explain in what sense, if any, moral values have normative authority for a person as opposed to simply being accepted. The fact that we sometimes think our moral values have been mistaken is often thought to imply that we believe they have some authority that does not consist in the mere fact that we accept them.

Above Gowans notes different uses of relativism and subjectivism here. Relativism has been used to refer to cultural relativism and subjectivism to individual relativism. Subjectivism has been used to only speak of what a person accepts but also what values (if any) have normative authority for a person.

I don't care which concepts are attached to which terms but we must try to get on the same page with them or we may misunderstand each other. It would be helpful if you wanted to lay out the various terms you think are pertinent to our discussion, give your definitions, and give an example in as like language as possible. Then, perhaps, I would better understand you and better share my thoughts.

[Bust Nak]

Is the focus of should/shouldn't here each individual or all individuals besides yourself or everyone?

I don't really know how to parse that question. I decide for myself only, if any individual should do something or not. Does that count as focused on each individual or everyone? Does that answer your question?

Above Gowans notes different uses of relativism and subjectivism here. Relativism has been used to refer to cultural relativism and subjectivism to individual relativism. Subjectivism has been used to only speak of what a person accepts but also what values (if any) have normative authority for a person.

Right, note that no where was it implied that one must treat all opinion as equal or that one tolerates others acting on their opinion. Pay special attention to the bit where it lay out the difference between appraiser and agent relativism, which is what I was talking about in my last post.

I don't care which concepts are attached to which terms but we must try to get on the same page with them or we may misunderstand each other. It would be helpful if you wanted to lay out the various terms you think are pertinent to our discussion, give your definitions, and give an example in as like language as possible. Then, perhaps, I would better understand you and better share my thoughts.

How about I sent you to a post I made ages ago? viewtopic.php?t=19394

[The Tanager]

Is the focus of should/shouldn't here each individual or all individuals besides yourself or everyone?

I don't really know how to parse that question. I decide for myself only, if any individual should do something or not. Does that count as focused on each individual or everyone? Does that answer your question?

Which of these (if either) would better represent what you are saying here?

(a) What I think anyone should or should not do is based on looking at my personal tastes.

(b) What anyone should or should not do is based on looking at my personal tastes.

To me (a) is trivially true. While (b) would seem to say that I am the objective standard for how everyone should act, that my personal taste is the truth of the matter in the same way that science gives us the truth of the matter on physical things like the shape of the earth. It does not seem like (b) leads to opinion being all there is.

Right, note that no where was it implied that one must treat all opinion as equal or that one tolerates others acting on their opinion.

I wasn't saying that Gowans was implying the definition I used for subjectivism. Neither did Gowans contradict it. My point was that there is no one way for many philosophical terms. Even academics use terms differently.

As to why I think subjectivism implies such things, I think we see from observing things like musical tastes, which we agree is subjective. In doing so, we don't treat one's opinion on what is good music as a better opinion than another's taste. They may match ours better than some other person's opinions, but we don't treat that opinion as more true. We don't treat our opinion as more true. We tolerate other's musical opinions because no one's opinion is better than another's; they are equally true in that sense. Those things are tied into thinking musical taste is subjective.

Pay special attention to the bit where it lay out the difference between appraiser and agent relativism, which is what I was talking about in my last post.

To me appraiser relativism is like (b) above. Each appraiser thinks that their personal tastes are the objective standard for everyone else. If two such beings existed, then at least one of these appraiser relativists would have to be false (unless they had identical personal tastes, of course). This does not seem to fit with the belief that all we have are subjective opinions. The appraiser's personal taste is the truth of the matter in the same way that science is for the shape of the earth.

Gowans defined subjectivism, in one sense, as "instead of saying that the truth or justification of moral judgments is relative to a group, we should say it is relative to each individual (as noted above, relativism is sometimes defined to include both positions)." Appraiser relativism does not seem to fit that definiton of subjectivism because the truth is not relative to each individual, it's relative to one individual, the appraiser. Agent relativism, on the other hand, does make the truth or justification of moral judgments relative to each individual. That does fit with "opinion is all there is."

How about I sent you to a post I made ages ago? viewtopic.php?t=19394

Thank you.

[Bust Nak]

Which of these (if either) would better represent what you are saying here?

(a) What I think anyone should or should not do is based on looking at my personal tastes.

(b) What anyone should or should not do is based on looking at my personal tastes.

B is better for being less ambiguous but both applies. What I think anyone should or should not do is synonymous with what anyone should or should not do.

To me (a) is trivially true. While (b) would seem to say that I am the objective standard for how everyone should act, that my personal taste is the truth of the matter in the same way that science gives us the truth of the matter on physical things like the shape of the earth. It does not seem like (b) leads to opinion being all there is.

How is something that is based on my personal taste objective?

I wasn't saying that Gowans was implying the definition I used for subjectivism. Neither did Gowans contradict it. My point was that there is no one way for many philosophical terms. Even academics use terms differently.

So stick to the common one unless there is a reason to switch.

As to why I think subjectivism implies such things, I think we see from observing things like musical tastes, which we agree is subjective. In doing so, we don't treat one's opinion on what is good music as a better opinion than another's taste.

Again, you may not, but I do. My opinion is the best, if it wasn't the best then I wouldn't hold it.

They may match ours better than some other person's opinions, but we don't treat that opinion as more true. We don't treat our opinion as more true.

That much I agree with. Its not more true, it's just the best. Best and true are not the same concepts, do you disagree?

We tolerate other's musical opinions because no one's opinion is better than another's...

Not I. I tolerate other's musical opinions because my opinion is better than another's and according to this best opinion, one ought to tolerate other's musical opinions.

To me appraiser relativism is like (b) above. Each appraiser thinks that their personal tastes are the objective standard for everyone else. If two such beings existed, then at least one of these appraiser relativists would have to be false (unless they had identical personal tastes, of course). This does not seem to fit with the belief that all we have are subjective opinions. The appraiser's personal taste is the truth of the matter in the same way that science is for the shape of the earth.

Same as above, it's really odd that you think that personal taste is objective. A standard that is for everyone is enough to make it objectively true?

Gowans defined subjectivism, in one sense, as "instead of saying that the truth or justification of moral judgments is relative to a group, we should say it is relative to each individual (as noted above, relativism is sometimes defined to include both positions)." Appraiser relativism does not seem to fit that definiton of subjectivism because the truth is not relative to each individual, it's relative to one individual, the appraiser.

If it is relative to one individual, then which individual does appraiser relativism does not apply to?

Agent relativism, on the other hand, does make the truth or justification of moral judgments relative to each individual. That does fit with "opinion is all there is."

Sure, but not many people follows that.

[The Tanager]

I wasn't saying that Gowans was implying the definition I used for subjectivism. Neither did Gowans contradict it. My point was that there is no one way for many philosophical terms. Even academics use terms differently.

So stick to the common one unless there is a reason to switch.

I'm using the more common one that I've come across in my readings but there are plenty of ethical philosophers I haven't read, so you may be right about what the most common one is in the literature. I'm happy to use your terms, whether they are more common or not, as long as they are clearly defined.

How is something that is based on my personal taste objective?

What is your definition of "objective" here? My eyes are blue. That is an objective fact that is true for everyone, including myself. But it's not true because of something outside of me, so in a sense that truth is subjective. But it's not true because of any personal taste I have for blue eyes (although I do like blue eyes the best). I simply have the color of eyes I have. That seems to be different, at first thought, than what you are saying with your personal tastes, but don't you think we have no say over our personal tastes either? We simply have the personal tastes we do. So maybe it's not that different after all.

You seem to be saying that the objective fact of what anyone should or should not do is based on your personal taste. My view isn't that different, although with an important distinction, which is that I think the appraiser is not myself, but a different being's subjective tastes.

They may match ours better than some other person's opinions, but we don't treat that opinion as more true. We don't treat our opinion as more true.

That much I agree with. Its not more true, it's just the best. Best and true are not the same concepts, do you disagree?

Yes, they are different concepts but why we think something best can be that it is more true. So, in your view, what is it that makes classical music the best? How is it the best?

Same as above, it's really odd that you think that personal taste is objective. A standard that is for everyone is enough to make it objectively true?

I would define 'objective' as being mind-independent. Not independent of any mind whatsoever, but independent of the mind who's asking the question. There is something outside of myself that makes X true or false. In your view, morality is objective to everyone but you. In my view, human morality is objective to everyone but God.

Gowans defined subjectivism, in one sense, as "instead of saying that the truth or justification of moral judgments is relative to a group, we should say it is relative to each individual (as noted above, relativism is sometimes defined to include both positions)." Appraiser relativism does not seem to fit that definiton of subjectivism because the truth is not relative to each individual, it's relative to one individual, the appraiser.

If it is relative to one individual, then which individual does appraiser relativism does not apply to?

It seems to me that it applies to all individuals, being objective to all individuals except for one, the appraiser, to which it is relative.

Agent relativism, on the other hand, does make the truth or justification of moral judgments relative to each individual. That does fit with "opinion is all there is."

Sure, but not many people follows that.

Then not many people are subjectivists, under that usage of the term, including yourself. Don't mistake that for me thinking I've won some debate; I realize that is not what you mean by subjectivism. I was just working off of a definition that Gowans said is a common use of the term.

[Bust Nak]

I'm using the more common one that I've come across in my readings but there are plenty of ethical philosophers I haven't read, so you may be right about what the most common one is in the literature. I'm happy to use your terms, whether they are more common or not, as long as they are clearly defined.

Try the one on wiki, that's popular and matches with my usage.

What is your definition of "objective" here? My eyes are blue. That is an objective fact that is true for everyone, including myself. But it's not true because of something outside of me, so in a sense that truth is subjective. But it's not true because of any personal taste I have for blue eyes (although I do like blue eyes the best). I simply have the color of eyes I have.

That's fine, and is in line with the usual definitions of objectivism along the lines of "mind-independent."

That seems to be different, at first thought, than what you are saying with your personal tastes...

Right, hence my question, how is something that is based on my personal taste objective?

...don't you think we have no say over our personal tastes either?

One does not choose our personal taste, if that's what you are asking. I don't see how that affect whether it is mind independent or not.

You seem to be saying that the objective fact of what anyone should or should not do is based on your personal taste.

I said no such thing though. All I said was "what anyone should or should not do is based on my personal tastes." You tagged on "the objective fact of" bit. This is why I keep accusing you of viewing things through an objectivist's lens.

So, in your view, what is it that makes classical music the best? How is it the best?

It's the best according to the one best standard of judging music - mine.

I would define 'objective' as being mind-independent. Not independent of any mind whatsoever, but independent of the mind who's asking the question.

Right, with that definition in mind, how exactly did you come to the conclusion that is something based on my personal taste is objective? Is "it's based on my taste" not the same concept as "it depends on my mind, the mind of the guy asking the question?"

In your view, morality is objective to everyone but you.

Not according to definition being used here. Morality is mind-dependent, my mind in particular.

It seems to me that it applies to all individuals, being objective to all individuals except for one, the appraiser, to which it is relative.

Along the same line above, is that not the same thing as ""it depends on appraiser, the guy asking the question," and hence not objective?

Then not many people are subjectivists, under that usage of the term, including yourself. Don't mistake that for me thinking I've won some debate; I realize that is not what you mean by subjectivism. I was just working off of a definition that Gowans said is a common use of the term.

But the author said that appraiser relativism is the more common one.

[The Tanager]

I'm using the more common one that I've come across in my readings but there are plenty of ethical philosophers I haven't read, so you may be right about what the most common one is in the literature. I'm happy to use your terms, whether they are more common or not, as long as they are clearly defined.

Try the one on wiki, that's popular and matches with my usage.

Yes, you are consistent with that definition.

One does not choose our personal taste, if that's what you are asking. I don't see how that affect whether it is mind independent or not.

So, in your view, what is it that makes classical music the best? How is it the best?

It's the best according to the one best standard of judging music - mine.

Are you saying "best" is a synonym for "matches my view" or a distinct concept?

I would define 'objective' as being mind-independent. Not independent of any mind whatsoever, but independent of the mind who's asking the question.

Right, with that definition in mind, how exactly did you come to the conclusion that is something based on my personal taste is objective? Is "it's based on my taste" not the same concept as "it depends on my mind, the mind of the guy asking the question?"

It looks like we understand different things by the phrase 'the guy asking the question.' It seems to me that your view says both of these things:

(1) When faced with the question of whether to abuse a child or not, Bust Nak [i.e., the guy asking the question] should not abuse a child because that matches Bust Nak's personal opinion on the matter.

(2) When faced with the question of whether to abuse a child or not, The Tanager [i.e., the guy now asking the question] should not abuse a child because that matches Bust Nak's personal opinion on the matter.

Your answer is dependent upon the mind of the guy asking the question (you), but my answer is not dependent upon the guy asking the question (me).