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]

Yep, just as you do with ice-cream. Is (A), (B), or (C) going to inform your taste reaction? You believe (B) is true, i.e., you believe your (C) is a personal hallucination. Yet, you still act on (C); you act on your personal hallucination.

Yes, but that's not what I do with judging Johnny's ice cream choice.

They think they are doing it, but that's not possible since it's an incoherent position. What they are actually doing is acting on their personal hallucination (C) they like personal freedom.

Then what we are doing when we say "the shape of the Earth is spherical" is just as much acting on our personal hallucination (C) we like the Earth having an objective shape. We subjectively like that because we like saying objectively true things.

You say because taste is subjective, but why this conclusion and not what the subjects should do is dependent on the subjective part the evaluator resides in?

Because I know the part I reside in is my hallucination, my part, that doesn't reflect a truth about the rest of reality. The subjects whom I am judging don't just exist in my head; they exist out there.

[Bust Nak]

Yes, but that's not what I do with judging Johnny's ice cream choice.

Lets see about that...

Then what we are doing when we say "the shape of the Earth is spherical" is just as much acting on our personal hallucination (C) we like the Earth having an objective shape. We subjectively like that because we like saying objectively true things.

Sure we like saying objectively true things, that's a (C). We also say that because of (A) it's an objective truth of reality. I don't see what that has to do with what I said about (B).

Because I know the part I reside in is my hallucination, my part, that doesn't reflect a truth about the rest of reality. The subjects whom I am judging don't just exist in my head; they exist out there.

Please go into more detail. How does that imply "subjects should do is dependent on the subjective part they reside in" but not "what the subjects should do is dependent on the subjective part the evaluator resides in?" So what if the subject does not just exist in your head? While we are here, when you are judging Johnny's ice-cream choice, are you not the subject and Johnny's ice-cream choice the object?

[The Tanager]

Sure we like saying objectively true things, that's a (C). We also say that because of (A) it's an objective truth of reality. I don't see what that has to do with what I said about (B).

(A) is about saying X because we believe X is objectively true.
(C) is about saying X because of our subjective experience of X.

You seem to think a phrase like "I like personal freedom" is our subjective experience of X, our preference, a (C). But, in that way, so is "the Earth is flat." You believe, I think, that there is a difference between saying:

(C1) I experience the Earth as spherical.
(C2) I like saying objectively true things.
(C3) I don't like people saying objectively false things as though they were true.

and

(A) One should not believe the Earth is flat because the shape of the Earth is objectively spherical.

That kind of distinction (not the objective part, but that two different kinds of things are being said) doesn't seem to follow when you talk about (B) things.

(C4) I experience food taste as a subjective feature of reality.
(C5) I like people having personal freedom in subjective features of reality.

and

(B) One should eat whichever ice cream they like because food taste is subjective.

You seem to treat (A) different than the (C1-3), but you don't treat (B) different than (C4-5). You say (B) is just another (C), where (A) is not.

Please go into more detail. How does that imply "subjects should do is dependent on the subjective part they reside in" but not "what the subjects should do is dependent on the subjective part the evaluator resides in?" So what if the subject does not just exist in your head?

If I say that I believe that one should do what they like in a situation, then that judgment is saying what they should do is dependent on their subjective experience of reality, not me, the evaluator. Yes, my judgment depends on what I value (personal freedom), but that's what it means to judge. My ultimate judgment in the situation depends on their subjective likes and dislikes.

While we are here, when you are judging Johnny's ice-cream choice, are you not the subject and Johnny's ice-cream choice the object?

When judging the shape of the Earth, are you not the subject and the shape of the Earth the object? Does this mean your judgment is subjective? No, it isn't.

In your phrasing above, the object being judged can be believed to be an objective or subjective/non-objective feature of reality.

[Bust Nak]

...
You seem to treat (A) different than the (C1-3), but you don't treat (B) different than (C4-5). You say (B) is just another (C), where (A) is not.

Okay, I see what you are getting at. I am not saying (B) is just another (C) though. I said (B) is in incoherent position and hence impossible to actually hold. When people say they are doing (B) what they are actually doing is a (C). What I said here is different from claiming (B) is just another (C).

I am treating them the same, this (A) is just as nonsensical as the (B). When people say (A) or (B), what they are actually doing is acting on their personal hallucination (C) they like personal freedom in food taste but does not like personal freedom in the shape of the Earth.

If I say that I believe that one should do what they like in a situation, then that judgment is saying what they should do is dependent on their subjective experience of reality, not me, the evaluator. Yes, my judgment depends on what I value (personal freedom), but that's what it means to judge. My ultimate judgment in the situation depends on their subjective likes and dislikes.

I asked you how you came to your conclusion, starting from the premise "my hallucination... doesn't reflect a truth about the rest of reality. The subjects whom I am judging... exist out there." Was this supposed to be an explanation? It looked like you are just restating your conclusion.

When judging the shape of the Earth, are you not the subject and the shape of the Earth the object? Does this mean your judgment is subjective? No, it isn't.

In your phrasing above, the object being judged can be believed to be an objective or subjective/non-objective feature of reality.

Sure, but you haven't answered my question. Does this mean you accept that when you judge Johnny's ice-cream taste, you are the subject and Johnny's ice-cream taste is the object? Point being, judging Johnny's ice-cream taste by your hallucination should be just fine, since you are the subject, and subject should appeal to his own hallucination.

[The Tanager]

Okay, I see what you are getting at. I am not saying (B) is just another (C) though. I said (B) is in incoherent position and hence impossible to actually hold. When people say they are doing (B) what they are actually doing is a (C). What I said here is different from claiming (B) is just another (C).

I am treating them the same, this (A) is just as nonsensical as the (B). When people say (A) or (B), what they are actually doing is acting on their personal hallucination (C) they like personal freedom in food taste but does not like personal freedom in the shape of the Earth.

But what you say is a sensical (A) can also be phrased as acting on their personal hallucination: (C) they like saying what they think are objectively true things. That, alone, does not make them a subjectivist. It matters what the content of their (C) picks out. Here, the objectivist is saying that it is objectively true that this feature of reality is an objective feature of reality. In (B), the non-objectivist is saying that it is objectively true that this feature of reality is a subjective feature of reality. Neither is talking about something being true because they have a preference akin to what ice cream flavor they like.

I asked you how you came to your conclusion, starting from the premise "my hallucination... doesn't reflect a truth about the rest of reality. The subjects whom I am judging... exist out there." Was this supposed to be an explanation? It looked like you are just restating your conclusion.

By believing food taste is subjective, we break up reality outside of ourselves into various parts with different objectively correct answers to questions like "does chocolate ice cream taste good?". In Johnny's subjective part the answer is objectively "No," and in mine it is objectively "Yes." If I judge something based on the belief that it is objectively true that the feature of reality is a subjective feature of reality, I must take note of how there are different objectively correct answers. It is not the evaluator who decides what is objectively correct for Johnny's taste; who the evaluator is for this judgment is irrelevant.

I think your confusion comes in that you want to say something like "I believe one should do what they like in a situation" is because "I like people doing what they want in a situation." That is just restating things. I'm saying why I like people doing what they want in a situation is because that part of reality is subjectively broken up and what is objectively correct there is up to each individual person, regardless of who is doing the evaluation.

Sure, but you haven't answered my question. Does this mean you accept that when you judge Johnny's ice-cream taste, you are the subject and Johnny's ice-cream taste is the object? Point being, judging Johnny's ice-cream taste by your hallucination should be just fine, since you are the subject, and subject should appeal to his own hallucination.

The point of my answer is that I think you are equivocating here. From this you seem to be saying that therefore you are a non-objectivist. By this usage you are a non-objectivist/subjectivist about everything. You also accept that when you judge the shape of the Earth, you are the subject and the shape of the Earth is the object. Well, judging the shape of the Earth by your personal hallucination should be just fine, you should appeal to your own hallucination. Therefore, you are a non-objectivist/subjectivist about the shape of the Earth? No. You are an objectivist.

Therefore, using the language you do above must be misleading somewhere. I think it's because subjective at one time means non-objective, but in another it means something like "by the one who judges." But if it means "by the one who judges," then everything will be subjective by definition because the judge judges by their judgment every time.

[Bust Nak]

But what you say is a sensical (A) can also be phrased as acting on their personal hallucination: (C) they like saying what they think are objectively true things. That, alone, does not make them a subjectivist.

Can it really be phrased that way? (A) says they believe the Earth is round, this (C) says they like saying the Earth is round. These are decidedly different messages.

It matters what the content of their (C) picks out. Here, the objectivist is saying that it is objectively true that this feature of reality is an objective feature of reality.

In (B), the non-objectivist is saying that it is objectively true that this feature of reality is a subjective feature of reality. Neither is talking about something being true because they have a preference akin to what ice cream flavor they like.

Sure. I just don't see what that has to do with what I said. Explaining that they are saying doesn't address my complain, which is that they are not in actuality doing what they say they are doing, they can't do what they say because it's an incoherent position.

By believing food taste is subjective, we break up reality outside of ourselves into various parts with different objectively correct answers to questions like "does chocolate ice cream taste good?". In Johnny's subjective part the answer is objectively "No," and in mine it is objectively "Yes." If I judge something based on the belief that it is objectively true that the feature of reality is a subjective feature of reality, I must take note of how there are different objectively correct answers. It is not the evaluator who decides what is objectively correct for Johnny's taste; who the evaluator is for this judgment is irrelevant.

Sure, still don't see how any of that even come close to explaining how you got to the conclusion that "what subjects should do is dependent on the subjective part they reside in."

While we are here, I think it's worth pointing out that the "different objectively correct answers" you are referring to, aren't the answers to the question "does chocolate ice cream taste good?" We've already established there is not objectively correct answers to questions on the content of someone's taste/hallucination.

I think your confusion comes in that you want to say something like "I believe one should do what they like in a situation" is because "I like people doing what they want in a situation." That is just restating things.

That's the point, my position is trivial to defend.

I'm saying why I like people doing what they want in a situation is because that part of reality is subjectively broken up and what is objectively correct there is up to each individual person, regardless of who is doing the evaluation.

Firstly, you've already acknowledge that if I keep pressing you for why you like something, you would eventually be stuck with "that's the way I roll" so I really don't see the point of you explaining why you like people doing what they want.
More importantly, why are you even talking about you liking people doing what they want in in the first place? Are you finally going to acknowledge that you came to the conclusion that "one should do what they like" because you like people doing what they want, i.e. doing a (C)?

The point of my answer is that I think you are equivocating here. From this you seem to be saying that therefore you are a non-objectivist. By this usage you are a non-objectivist/subjectivist about everything.

Why? As you've already pointed out, me, a subject, judging the object, shape of the Earth as being round, doesn't mean I am a subjectivist about the shape of the Earth.

You also accept that when you judge the shape of the Earth, you are the subject and the shape of the Earth is the object. Well, judging the shape of the Earth by your personal hallucination should be just fine, you should appeal to your own hallucination. Therefore, you are a non-objectivist/subjectivist about the shape of the Earth? No. You are an objectivist.

Right, if you know this, so why on Earth do you think I am saying that would make me a non-objectivist?! The point, as always been when you first spoke of personal hallucination, is that when I judge Johnny's ice-cream taste, I am not applying my personal hallucination to him.

[The Tanager]

Can it really be phrased that way? (A) says they believe the Earth is round, this (C) says they like saying the Earth is round. These are decidedly different messages.

So is (B) "food taste is subjective" and (C) "I like personal freedom in food tastes".

By believing food taste is subjective, we break up reality outside of ourselves into various parts with different objectively correct answers to questions like "does chocolate ice cream taste good?". In Johnny's subjective part the answer is objectively "No," and in mine it is objectively "Yes." If I judge something based on the belief that it is objectively true that the feature of reality is a subjective feature of reality, I must take note of how there are different objectively correct answers. It is not the evaluator who decides what is objectively correct for Johnny's taste; who the evaluator is for this judgment is irrelevant.

Sure, still don't see how any of that even come close to explaining how you got to the conclusion that "what subjects should do is dependent on the subjective part they reside in."

While we are here, I think it's worth pointing out that the "different objectively correct answers" you are referring to, aren't the answers to the question "does chocolate ice cream taste good?" We've already established there is not objectively correct answers to questions on the content of someone's taste/hallucination.

You are correct, it's: "does chocolate ice cream taste good to you?"

What's the shape of the Earth to you? The answer is objectively 'spherical' to everyone, if you are an objectivist. The answer is different for different people, if you are a non-objectivist. If the shape of the Earth was a subjective aspect of reality, then whether it was spherical or not would depend on the person, on which "part of reality they reside in," metaphorically speaking and not on the one doing the evaluation. Judging based on one's own subjective preference is not the same as this.

I think your confusion comes in that you want to say something like "I believe one should do what they like in a situation" is because "I like people doing what they want in a situation." That is just restating things.

That's the point, my position is trivial to defend.

But both of our positions can be phrased in that exact same way. Both of our views are trivial at that point. My point is that doing so doesn't get to our disagreement.

Firstly, you've already acknowledge that if I keep pressing you for why you like something, you would eventually be stuck with "that's the way I roll" so I really don't see the point of you explaining why you like people doing what they want.

Because "I like personal freedom" is not at that level for me. It can be broken down into what I feel about personal freedom and whether the feature I'm looking at is objective or subjective. That separates it from being a (C).

Right, if you know this, so why on Earth do you think I am saying that would make me a non-objectivist?! The point, as always been when you first spoke of personal hallucination, is that when I judge Johnny's ice-cream taste, I am not applying my personal hallucination to him.

A personal hallucination is another term for a (C) and you are the one saying that there is either an (A) or a (C), that (B) is incoherent, and you aren't an objectivist about Johnny's food taste. So, you must be applying your personal hallucination, your (C). You say you judge Johnny's ice cream by your subjective experience of reality, your (C), of "liking Johnny to have freedom in food taste."

[Bust Nak]

So is (B) "food taste is subjective" and (C) "I like personal freedom in food tastes".

Yep, what exactly is you point?

You are correct, it's: "does chocolate ice cream taste good to you?"

What's the shape of the Earth to you? The answer is objectively 'spherical' to everyone, if you are an objectivist. The answer is different for different people, if you are a non-objectivist. If the shape of the Earth was a subjective aspect of reality, then whether it was spherical or not would depend on the person, on which "part of reality they reside in," metaphorically speaking and not on the one doing the evaluation. Judging based on one's own subjective preference is not the same as this.

Right, still not seeing how that get you any closer to "one should do what they like in."

But both of our positions can be phrased in that exact same way. Both of our views are trivial at that point. My point is that doing so doesn't get to our disagreement.

I don't understand what you are saying here. The disagreement is that your position is different to mine, phrasing your position in the way I do would mean changing your position to match mine. There would no longer be a disagreement if you and I hold the same position.

Because "I like personal freedom" is not at that level for me. It can be broken down into what I feel about personal freedom and whether the feature I'm looking at is objective or subjective. That separates it from being a (C).

"I like polar bears and this policy objectively harms polar bears, therefore I don't like this policy" is this an (A) or a (C)? I think that despite as extra intermediate step, it's still an appeal to a personal hallucination, making it a (C). In the same way, breaking things down into more step doesn't separate your claim from a (C).

A personal hallucination is another term for a (C) and you are the one saying that there is either an (A) or a (C), that (B) is incoherent, and you aren't an objectivist about Johnny's food taste. So, you must be applying your personal hallucination, your (C). You say you judge Johnny's ice cream by your subjective experience of reality, your (C), of "liking Johnny to have freedom in food taste."

Yes, I am applying my personal hallucination that much we agreed on. The contention is who or what I am applying it to. I say I am applying it to myself, you say I am applying it to Johnny.

[The Tanager]

You are correct, it's: "does chocolate ice cream taste good to you?"

What's the shape of the Earth to you? The answer is objectively 'spherical' to everyone, if you are an objectivist. The answer is different for different people, if you are a non-objectivist. If the shape of the Earth was a subjective aspect of reality, then whether it was spherical or not would depend on the person, on which "part of reality they reside in," metaphorically speaking and not on the one doing the evaluation. Judging based on one's own subjective preference is not the same as this.

Right, still not seeing how that get you any closer to "one should do what they like in."

In (C) we are ignoring reality outside of ourselves and just going off our subjective experience of reality. In (A) we are saying reality outside of ourselves tells us a truth about reality that we take into account in our judgments of others. I'm saying that if (B) is addressing the same issue as (A), it must do the same. In (B) we are saying reality outside of ourselves tells us a truth about reality that we take into account in our judgment of others, but that reality is not objective in the way (A) is.

You claim that the (B) is impossible, but I still don't see why you think that. You seem to be saying I've got to explain how it is not logically impossible. I don't see why that is the case. I don't see anything contradictory about putting those things together. You claim there is something, but I don't see it. So, we are at an impasse.

But both of our positions can be phrased in that exact same way. Both of our views are trivial at that point. My point is that doing so doesn't get to our disagreement.

I don't understand what you are saying here. The disagreement is that your position is different to mine, phrasing your position in the way I do would mean changing your position to match mine. There would no longer be a disagreement if you and I hold the same position.

Your phrasing is "I think one should do X" (where "one should do" is a synonym of "I like") "because I like X." It's just saying the same thing two ways. My point is that I am also trivially saying that I like X because I like X. This doesn't get to our disagreement.

"I like polar bears and this policy objectively harms polar bears, therefore I don't like this policy" is this an (A) or a (C)? I think that despite as extra intermediate step, it's still an appeal to a personal hallucination, making it a (C). In the same way, breaking things down into more step doesn't separate your claim from a (C).

What is the personal hallucination that is really behind this statement to you?

Yes, I am applying my personal hallucination that much we agreed on. The contention is who or what I am applying it to. I say I am applying it to myself, you say I am applying it to Johnny.

It seems to me that you think you are judging your judgment of Johnny. I think you are judging Johnny's action.

[Bust Nak]

You claim that the (B) is impossible, but I still don't see why you think that.

I told you why, it's a non sequitur.

You seem to be saying I've got to explain how it is not logically impossible. I don't see why that is the case. I don't see anything contradictory about putting those things together. You claim there is something, but I don't see it. So, we are at an impasse.

You said taste is subjective therefore one should do what they like. I want you to explain why. You can't because it does not follow.

Your phrasing is "I think one should do X" (where "one should do" is a synonym of "I like") "because I like X." It's just saying the same thing two ways. My point is that I am also trivially saying that I like X because I like X. This doesn't get to our disagreement.

Sure, I don't want you to trivially saying that I like X because I like X. I want you to affirm "I think one should do X" (where "one should do" is a synonym of "I like") "because I like X. That is our disagreement. So what exactly was the purpose in pointing out that you are trivially saying that I like X because I like X, when it does not capture my phrasing?

What is the personal hallucination that is really behind this statement to you?

I like polar bears, and their continual existence.

It seems to me that you think you are judging your judgment of Johnny. I think you are judging Johnny's action.

No contest, I am judging Johnny's action, that's not the point. The point is, in judging Johnny's action (as opposed to judging my judgment of Johnny) in am not applying personal hallucination to Johnny.