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]

Subjectively wrong means disagrees with one's opinion, subjectively right means agrees with one's opinion. Whose opinion depends on who the subject is, in this particular case, mine. Why would that stop my C from being a C-kind of statement?

Because it is identical to the A-kind of statements. Person A believes X. Person B believes Y. Person A and Person B disagree on their beliefs.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #511]

The whole point of subjectivism is that wrongness is not distinct from a personal dislike. Not seeing how my C being identical to A is supposed to render my C any less a C-type statement.

Flip it round to my point of view, would it be a valid complain to say your C isn't a C-type statement because it is not identical to the A-kind of statements?

[The Tanager]

Not seeing how my C being identical to A is supposed to render my C any less a C-type statement.

Flip it round to my point of view, would it be a valid complain to say your C isn't a C-type statement because it is not identical to the A-kind of statements?

This has nothing to do with one's point of view; it's just about categorizing types of statements. The letters are only there to denote different kinds of statements. If a statement is identical to something labeled as an A-kind of statement, then it can't also be a non-A (i.e., B or C) kind of statement.

The whole point of subjectivism is that wrongness is not distinct from a personal dislike.

How you use the term, yes. Here are four statements that one could say. I think 2-4 are attempting to address the same issue.

1. I like X.
2. Whether or not I dislike X, I think right/wrong is the same for everyone.
3. Whether or not I dislike X, I think right/wrong is different for different people.
4. Whether or not I dislike X, there is no right/wrong.

For this kind of classification "like/dislike" must be a different concept than "right/wrong". I think you hold to 1 and 4. But if so, for clarity's sake, don't say child abuse is wrong; just say you don't like child abuse.

[Bust Nak]

This has nothing to do with one's point of view; it's just about categorizing types of statements. The letters are only there to denote different kinds of statements. If a statement is identical to something labeled as an A-kind of statement, then it can't also be a non-A (i.e., B or C) kind of statement.

Why are you treating C kind of statements as a non-A to begin with? Why must they be different kind of statements and not as I suggested, they are the same under one worldview and different in another? And if they must be different, that still doesn't advance your earlier challenge that my take on subjectivism proper doesn't address the same thing as objectivism does. Here is my counter-argument:

In one sense (if A and C are allowed to be the same) subjectivism proper says C kind of statements is the same as A type of statements, in contrast with objectivism which says A and C are distinct. In another sense (if A and C must be distinct) subjectivism proper denies the existence of C kind of statements, in contrast with objectivism that says C type exists. Either way, subjectivism proper is still addressing the same thing as objectivism.

How you use the term, yes. Here are four statements that one could say. I think 2-4 are attempting to address the same issue.

1. I like X.
2. Whether or not I dislike X, I think right/wrong is the same for everyone.
3. Whether or not I dislike X, I think right/wrong is different for different people.
4. Whether or not I dislike X, there is no right/wrong.

For this kind of classification "like/dislike" must be a different concept than "right/wrong". I think you hold to 1 and 4. But if so, for clarity's sake, don't say child abuse is wrong; just say you don't like child abuse.

Again, think food taste.

1. I like X.
2. Whether or not I dislike X, I think tasty/yuck is the same for everyone.
3. Whether or not I dislike X, I think tasty/yuck is different for different people.
4. Whether or not I dislike X, there is no tasty/yuck.

Presumably you accept 1 and reject 2. Do you hold to 3 or 4? Must "like/dislike" be conceptually different to "tasty/yuck?" I would argue no, I like the taste of pizza means the exact same thing as pizza is tasty and can be switch on the fly. I certainly would not bow to the demand of only saying "I like pizza" but never "pizza is tasty."

I hold 1 and 3, and reject the suggestion that "like/dislike" must be a different concept than "right/wrong" or "tasty/yuck." As such you can add a 5. X is right/tasty means the exact same thing as I like X; X is wrong/yuck means the same thing as I dislike X.

[The Tanager]

Why are you treating C kind of statements as a non-A to begin with? Why must they be different kind of statements and not as I suggested, they are the same under one worldview and different in another?

I think there is simply misunderstanding here. I'm using them as category designations. Categories are different from each other. One can categorize sensation into different groups (smell, sight, touch, taste, hearing). Views can only be compared when the categories are agreed upon, otherwise they talk past each other. Either C-kind of statements are not-A or they don't exist as a separate category.

And if they must be different, that still doesn't advance your earlier challenge that my take on subjectivism proper doesn't address the same thing as objectivism does. Here is my counter-argument:

In one sense (if A and C are allowed to be the same) subjectivism proper says C kind of statements is the same as A type of statements, in contrast with objectivism which says A and C are distinct. In another sense (if A and C must be distinct) subjectivism proper denies the existence of C kind of statements, in contrast with objectivism that says C type exists. Either way, subjectivism proper is still addressing the same thing as objectivism.

Logic says A, B, C, D, E, etc. kinds of statements are distinct. I'm saying simple subjectivism covers A-type statements (objectivists and non-objectivists both make these kinds of statements, but that doesn't make it an objectivism/non-objectivism kind of statement). Objectivism covers B- and C-type statements. If subjectivism addresses the same issues objectivism does, then they must also make B- and C-type statements.

Again, think food taste.

1. I like X.
2. Whether or not I dislike X, I think tasty/yuck is the same for everyone.
3. Whether or not I dislike X, I think tasty/yuck is different for different people.
4. Whether or not I dislike X, there is no tasty/yuck.

Presumably you accept 1 and reject 2. Do you hold to 3 or 4? Must "like/dislike" be conceptually different to "tasty/yuck?" I would argue no, I like the taste of pizza means the exact same thing as pizza is tasty and can be switch on the fly. I certainly would not bow to the demand of only saying "I like pizza" but never "pizza is tasty."

I hold 1 and 3, and reject the suggestion that "like/dislike" must be a different concept than "right/wrong" or "tasty/yuck." As such you can add a 5. X is right/tasty means the exact same thing as I like X; X is wrong/yuck means the same thing as I dislike X.

I will respond further, but first a question. Do you think the following statement is equivalent to 3 and/or 4?:

?. Whether or not I dislike X, some people like X and some people dislike X.

[Bust Nak]

If subjectivism addresses the same issues objectivism does, then they must also make B- and C-type statements.

Must they? What's wrong with my suggestion that Objectivism covers B and C types but not D while subjectivism covers B and D types but not C? With D being statements along the lines of like/dislike are synonymous with right/wrong or tasty/yuck (in contrast to C types which points out that like/dislike is distinct from right/wrong or tasty/yuck?)

I will respond further, but first a question. Do you think the following statement is equivalent to 3 and/or 4?:

?. Whether or not I dislike X, some people like X and some people dislike X.

Equivalent to 3. Like X is synonymous right; dislike X is synonymous wrong. Literally synonymous. A major reason we subjectivists don't switch between the two phrases haphazardly is that we know that'll just confuse moral objectivists since you guys don't see them as the same thing. (The other reason being it helps build the context for what kind one specific kind of taste we are referring to, i.e. moral vs food vs visual and so on.)

On the other hand, we do switch between like/dislike and tasty/yuck haphazardly because there aren't many (any?) taste objectivists around and there is zero confusion.

[The Tanager]

Must they? What's wrong with my suggestion that Objectivism covers B and C types but not D while subjectivism covers B and D types but not C? With D being statements along the lines of like/dislike are synonymous with right/wrong or tasty/yuck (in contrast to C types which points out that like/dislike is distinct from right/wrong or tasty/yuck?)

My point is a general point. It has nothing to do with specific content. I think it covers all issues, not just the issues we are talking about. I think it's just a matter of categorizing thought. My point is that answering a specific issue requires certain kind(s) of statements to address that issue. To say that two things address the same issue but make different kinds of statements is like saying a person is married and a bachelor.

Again, think food taste.

1. I like X.
2. Whether or not I dislike X, I think tasty/yuck is the same for everyone.
3. Whether or not I dislike X, I think tasty/yuck is different for different people.
4. Whether or not I dislike X, there is no tasty/yuck.

Presumably you accept 1 and reject 2. Do you hold to 3 or 4?

I accept (1). I reject (2), that there is a right taste for everyone to like. The way you word (3), I accept, but see it as a 1-kind of statement; just observing what views people hold and how they logically relate to each other. I would add this statement, where right/wrong is not a synonym for tasty/yuck:

3'. Whether or not I dislike X, I think right/wrong in taste is different for different people.

I think (3') and (4) may be trying to say the same thing in different ways, but I think (3') is the better phrasing. I think both are trying to say that taste is not a feature of food in and of itself. The phrasing in statement (4) seems to address the taste of a piece of food in and of itself, without any taster. As such, I agree that there is no objective tasty/yucky nature to broccoli. But the concept of taste, to me, necessarily includes the concept of a taster. You can't have taste without a taster. The (3') is addressing taste in relation to tasters. Therefore, I think (3') words things more precisely (although admit better language could probably be had). I think it is right, that is, I think Johnny should like the ice cream flavor that he naturally likes.

I will respond further, but first a question. Do you think the following statement is equivalent to 3 and/or 4?:

?. Whether or not I dislike X, some people like X and some people dislike X.

Equivalent to 3. Like X is synonymous right; dislike X is synonymous wrong. Literally synonymous. A major reason we subjectivists don't switch between the two phrases haphazardly is that we know that'll just confuse moral objectivists since you guys don't see them as the same thing. (The other reason being it helps build the context for what kind one specific kind of taste we are referring to, i.e. moral vs food vs visual and so on.)

On the other hand, we do switch between like/dislike and tasty/yuck haphazardly because there aren't many (any?) taste objectivists around and there is zero confusion.

If they are synonymous, then they should not be treated as different kinds of statements or we open up an easy possibility of confusion for all involved because they are identical statements. When comparing different views we need to be sure that we are talking about the same concepts and it helps to do so as effeciently as possible. While you see them as the same concept, I think they are distinct concepts. I see the concept you mean, but also mean an additional one that you weren't covering. If you aren't addressing the concept I am (but, rather, using that same wording to address an earlier concept we've already covered through other wording), then we are not addressing the same issue. That is why we need to use right/wrong as a distinct concept from like/find tasty/find yucky (I'll just write "like" to cover all your synonymous ways to say the same concept).

With that in mind, I think the categorization should be something like:

1a. I like X.
1b. Johnny likes Y.
1c. Johnny and I like different things. And the equivalent: Some people like X and some people dislike X. [all of 1a-1c are simple subjectivism]

2. Whether or not I dislike X, I think right/wrong is the same for everyone. [objectivism]
3. Whether or not I dislike X, I think right/wrong is different for different people. [non-objectivism/subjectivism proper/???]
4. Whether or not I dislike X, there is no right/wrong. (???)

I left (4) on there, although I think it's trying to say the same thing I mean by (3) in case you feel it is sharing a concept different than 1-3. So, my questions are do you see (4) as a fourth concept? If so, can you explain how it is different? What do you believe about (3) and (4)?

[Bust Nak]

My point is a general point. It has nothing to do with specific content. I think it covers all issues, not just the issues we are talking about. I think it's just a matter of categorizing thought. My point is that answering a specific issue requires certain kind(s) of statements to address that issue. To say that two things address the same issue but make different kinds of statements is like saying a person is married and a bachelor.

In this sense, what wrong with them addressing different things? Subjectivism addresses subjectivity, while objectivism addresses onjectivity.

I accept (1). I reject (2), that there is a right taste for everyone to like. The way you word (3), I accept, but see it as a 1-kind of statement; just observing what views people hold and how they logically relate to each other. I would add this statement, where right/wrong is not a synonym for tasty/yuck:

3'. Whether or not I dislike X, I think right/wrong in taste is different for different people.

I think (3') and (4) may be trying to say the same thing in different ways, but I think (3') is the better phrasing. I think both are trying to say that taste is not a feature of food in and of itself. The phrasing in statement (4) seems to address the taste of a piece of food in and of itself, without any taster. As such, I agree that there is no objective tasty/yucky nature to broccoli. But the concept of taste, to me, necessarily includes the concept of a taster. You can't have taste without a taster.

Right now apply the same line of thinking to morality and you have moral subjectivity.

The (3') is addressing taste in relation to tasters. Therefore, I think (3') words things more precisely (although admit better language could probably be had). I think it is right, that is, I think Johnny should like the ice cream flavor that he naturally likes.

How is "Johnny should like the ice cream flavor that he naturally likes" supposed to be a more precise version of taste is different for different people?

If they are synonymous, then they should not be treated as different kinds of statements or we open up an easy possibility of confusion for all involved because they are identical statements.

Sure, that's why I treat I disapprove of child abuse the same as child abuse is wrong.

When comparing different views we need to be sure that we are talking about the same concepts and it helps to do so as effeciently as possible. While you see them as the same concept, I think they are distinct concepts. I see the concept you mean, but also mean an additional one that you weren't covering. If you aren't addressing the concept I am (but, rather, using that same wording to address an earlier concept we've already covered through other wording), then we are not addressing the same issue. That is why we need to use right/wrong as a distinct concept from like/find tasty/find yucky (I'll just write "like" to cover all your synonymous ways to say the same concept).

Why must I be the one to alter my vocabulary to remove this ambiguity though. Why don't you stop using right and wrong if you meant something distinct to like/tasty/yucky? Earlier you said you weren't arguing semantics and are happy to adopt my usage.

With that in mind, I think the categorization should be something like:

1a. I like X.
1b. Johnny likes Y.
1c. Johnny and I like different things. And the equivalent: Some people like X and some people dislike X. [all of 1a-1c are simple subjectivism]

2. Whether or not I dislike X, I think right/wrong is the same for everyone. [objectivism]
3. Whether or not I dislike X, I think right/wrong is different for different people. [non-objectivism/subjectivism proper/???]
4. Whether or not I dislike X, there is no right/wrong. (???)

I left (4) on there, although I think it's trying to say the same thing I mean by (3) in case you feel it is sharing a concept different than 1-3. So, my questions are do you see (4) as a fourth concept? If so, can you explain how it is different? What do you believe about (3) and (4)?

How about we be more explicit with 4? Whether or not I dislike X, there is no right/wrong in say child abuse in and of itself, without an evaluator.

With that (3) and (4) are the same.

[The Tanager]

In this sense, what wrong with them addressing different things? Subjectivism addresses subjectivity, while objectivism addresses onjectivity.

They don't need to address the same thing. But I was trying to understand you and you were saying that they do address the same thing.

How is "Johnny should like the ice cream flavor that he naturally likes" supposed to be a more precise version of taste is different for different people?

I wasn't comparing those two statements. Those two are completely distinct to me. "Taste is different for different people" to me is simply a statement of fact [simple subjectivism], while the other is about whether I am okay with that fact or think peoples' tastes should conform to one standard.

The two statements I was comparing were:

3'. Whether or not I dislike X, I think right/wrong in taste is different for different people.
4. Whether or not I dislike X, there is no right/wrong.

I think 3' better captures being okay or not okay with the fact. I think 4 would seem to say I'm neither okay nor not okay with the fact.

Sure, that's why I treat I disapprove of child abuse the same as child abuse is wrong.

I think that is a good way to put it, if you mean that "like" and "disapprove" are different concepts.

Why must I be the one to alter my vocabulary to remove this ambiguity though. Why don't you stop using right and wrong if you meant something distinct to like/tasty/yucky? Earlier you said you weren't arguing semantics and are happy to adopt my usage.

In mine I have two distinct concepts: like vs. wrong. Your vocabulary was making 'wrong' a synonym of 'like', but not replacing my concept of 'wrong' with a new term that is not synonymous. If 'disapprove' is that new concept, then let's use that. What's the difference for you of "I dislike X" and "I disapprove of Johnny doing X"?

[Bust Nak]

They don't need to address the same thing. But I was trying to understand you and you were saying that they do address the same thing.

I think it' rather odd that a statement saying "A is an X" doesn't qualify as addressing the same thing as a statement saying "A isn't an X" in your book. Both are talking about the nature of A, seems straight forward to me.

The two statements I was comparing were:

3'. Whether or not I dislike X, I think right/wrong in taste is different for different people.
4. Whether or not I dislike X, there is no right/wrong.

I think 3' better captures being okay or not okay with the fact. I think 4 would seem to say I'm neither okay nor not okay with the fact.

Still not entirely sure what you are getting at here. 4 is a straight forward statement of fact without indication of one's feelings about that fact, sure; is 3 supposed to be displaying being okay or not okay with the fact that taste is different for different people?

I think that is a good way to put it, if you mean that "like" and "disapprove" are different concepts.

They are not. I dislike this pizza means the same thing as I disapprove of it.

In mine I have two distinct concepts: like vs. wrong. Your vocabulary was making 'wrong' a synonym of 'like', but not replacing my concept of 'wrong' with a new term that is not synonymous.

That doesn't explain why I must be the one to change my vocabulary. Why don't you stop using wrong if you meant something other than dislike?

If 'disapprove' is that new concept, then let's use that. What's the difference for you of "I dislike X" and "I disapprove of Johnny doing X"?

There is none?