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]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #640]

3x6=7 (being an objective claim) is incorrect and synonymous with being wrong. (Incidentally is why I insist on people using "correct/incorrect" instead of "right/wrong" in the context of objectivism vs subjectivism)
Ice-cream is tasty (being a subjective claim) is neither correct nor incorrect, and also not wrong.
Ice-cream is yuck (being a subjective claim) is neither correct nor incorrect, but wrong.

For a hallucination to be wrong, it is in contrary with my taste, such as disliking something that I like.
For a hallucination to be incorrect, it is in contrary with objective reality, such as seeing a ghost when it's just a curtain.

"Known wrong answer" sounded to me to be synonymous with incorrect.

Perhaps more to the point, going back to your original point, judging people by "not the correct answer" (as opposed to the incorrect answer) may or may not be rational, depending on the situation.

[The Tanager]

For a hallucination to be wrong, it is in contrary with my taste, such as disliking something that I like.

Then you aren't judging people in a way different than just applying your preferences. You are ignoring the fact that no view is objectively correct and acting as though your preference is objectively correct and, therefore, should be applied to other opinions.

Perhaps more to the point, going back to your original point, judging people by "not the correct answer" (as opposed to the incorrect answer) may or may not be rational, depending on the situation.

What situation(s) do you have in mind?

[Bust Nak]

Then you aren't judging people in a way different than just applying your preferences.

Yes! That's what I've been trying to tell you for months.

You are ignoring the fact that no view is objectively correct and acting as though your preference is objectively correct and, therefore, should be applied to other opinions.

This is the bit that I don't get. How is "just applying my preferences" amount to treating it as "objectively correct?" All your attempts at explaining this eventually leads back to various way of asking me how I can judge others without an objective reference, without really explain this.

What situation(s) do you have in mind?

In situations where correctness is not applicable.

[The Tanager]

Then you aren't judging people in a way different than just applying your preferences.

Yes! That's what I've been trying to tell you for months.

But that's not our point of disagreement over the past months. You think this is a part of subjectivism proper; I think it is only simple subjectivism.

This is the bit that I don't get. How is "just applying my preferences" amount to treating it as "objectively correct?" All your attempts at explaining this eventually leads back to various way of asking me how I can judge others without an objective reference, without really explain this.

If there was not an objective shape to the Earth, then would you apply your preference of a spherical Earth to everyone else and respond to them in that?

Let's say you love Johnny. The Earth is flat for Johnny. He decides to sail to the edge of the world. He doesn't think he'll die, but let's say for Flat Earthers this would result in death. Let's say you don't want Johnny to die. Do you continue as though the Earth is spherical and judge and respond to Johnny from your perspective, letting him die or do you judge and respond to Johnny by his perspective?

What situation(s) do you have in mind?

In situations where correctness is not applicable.

That doesn't help me. Can you give specific situations that you are thinking of?

[Bust Nak]

But that's not our point of disagreement over the past months. You think this is a part of subjectivism proper; I think it is only simple subjectivism.

No, we've settled on that too, after I figured out what you were getting at. I accept that applying preference is just simple subjectivism. Subjectivism proper is when I say no preference is objectively true and preference is not an objective feature of reality. Applying preferences is not a part of that at all. We've had agreement on that much for quite a while now.

If there was not an objective shape to the Earth, then would you apply your preference of a spherical Earth to everyone else and respond to them in that?

Let's say you love Johnny. The Earth is flat for Johnny. He decides to sail to the edge of the world. He doesn't think he'll die, but let's say for Flat Earthers this would result in death. Let's say you don't want Johnny to die. Do you continue as though the Earth is spherical and judge and respond to Johnny from your perspective, letting him die or do you judge and respond to Johnny by his perspective?

I would continue as though the Earth is spherical and judge and respond to Johnny from my perspective, but I really don't get why a subjective shape would that cause him to die, surely only an objective shape can cause that?

The closest example I can think of is me disagreeing with Johnny on the taste of poison. Would I judge Johnny's taste from my perspective? Yes I would. Does that mean I would let Johnny drink poison? No. That is detrimental to his health regardless of how much Johnny and I like/dislike the taste, that much is objective.

Note that you are once again questioning my position instead of explaining why on "just applying my preferences (of an contrived subjective Earth shape example in this case)" amount to treating it as "objectively correct.

That doesn't help me. Can you give specific situations that you are thinking of?

We've had plenty of examples. Music itself, one's taste on music, ice-cream favor.

[The Tanager]

No, we've settled on that too, after I figured out what you were getting at. I accept that applying preference is just simple subjectivism. Subjectivism proper is when I say no preference is objectively true and preference is not an objective feature of reality. Applying preferences is not a part of that at all. We've had agreement on that much for quite a while now.

But you have said that because subjectivism proper is true, then all you can do is apply your preferences (i.e., bring in simple subjectivism to one's judgment). I have said that bringing in simple subjectivism after the claim of subjectivism proper is made either ignores subjectivism proper or contradicts it.

I would continue as though the Earth is spherical and judge and respond to Johnny from my perspective, but I really don't get why a subjective shape would that cause him to die, surely only an objective shape can cause that?

Johnny has an objective experience from taste being subjective. So, why wouldn't the subjectivity of the Earth also objectively affect Johnny? If so, then you would have no concern for Johnny (because you believe the Earth is round) and let him sail to his death?

Note that you are once again questioning my position instead of explaining why on "just applying my preferences (of an contrived subjective Earth shape example in this case)" amount to treating it as "objectively correct.

Yes, I think it is good to ask people questions, gain as much of their thoughts as one can, and then critique them if I find something worth critiquing and changing my view if something is said that should change it rather than to try to expose errors that I think may be there.

We've had plenty of examples. Music itself, one's taste on music, ice-cream favor.

So, why would it be rational for one to judge Johnny's music choice on one's own taste of music? Or judge Johnny's food choice on one's own taste of ice cream?

[Bust Nak]

But you have said that because subjectivism proper is true, then all you can do is apply your preferences (i.e., bring in simple subjectivism to one's judgment). I have said that bringing in simple subjectivism after the claim of subjectivism proper is made either ignores subjectivism proper or contradicts it.

Right, but that doesn't mean that I think applying my preferences is part of subjectivism proper, nor does it imply I am judging people in a way different than just applying my preferences. Can we focus on discussing whether any of these ignore or contradict subjectivism proper without revisiting settled issues like whether I think applying my preference is simple subjectivism or subjectivism proper?

Johnny has an objective experience from taste being subjective. So, why wouldn't the subjectivity of the Earth also objectively affect Johnny?

It wouldn't affect him because he cannot fall something that is not a feature or objective reality, he can only fall off concrete objects. I have come up with an non-contrived example, so maybe we can use my suggestion instead: Johnny and I both love the taste of whisky. I would judge his taste according to mine. He gets an approval from me for liking the same thing I do. With concern for his health, I stop him from finishing a whole bottle. Subjectivity of whisky taste, with objectivity of alcohol poisoning. Do you think there is anything odd about me approving his great taste in his choice of beverage while stopping him from poisoning himself?

Yes, I think it is good to ask people questions, gain as much of their thoughts as one can, and then critique them if I find something worth critiquing and changing my view if something is said that should change it rather than to try to expose errors that I think may be there.

Okay, do you think your critique of ignoring or contradicting subjectivism is still applicable in light of the following two facts? I am simply applying my preferences when I judge people, and this is indeed simple subjectivism. Your line of questioning lead to these.

So, why would it be rational for one to judge Johnny's music choice on one's own taste of music? Or judge Johnny's food choice on one's own taste of ice cream?

Because it would be rational to judge things by the best standard, and conversely irrational to judge things by a lesser standard in light of a better one.

[The Tanager]

Right, but that doesn't mean that I think applying my preferences is part of subjectivism proper, nor does it imply I am judging people in a way different than just applying my preferences. Can we focus on discussing whether any of these ignore or contradict subjectivism proper without revisiting settled issues like whether I think applying my preference is simple subjectivism or subjectivism proper?

There might be confusion about what was meant about switching between simple subjectivism and subjectivism proper, though. I don't seem to have made myself clear there. You seem to think that I was saying an individual can switch back and forth between the two in sharing their personal views on Johnny's child abuse. I don't think that. I think they are different views, where an individual can only hold one of them.

One can ignore the objectivism/subjectivism issue and share one's preference on the act itself. But if one answers the objectivism/subjectivism question, one can't return to simply sharing one's preference. One's view must now take one's answer to that question into account for their judgment of Johnny's action of child. Believing one's own opinion is not an accurate standard of reality and that one should judge the reality of Johnny's action by that inaccurate standard seems irrational to me.

It wouldn't affect him because he cannot fall something that is not a feature or objective reality, he can only fall off concrete objects.

That's because you are treating it as though it were objective rather than subjective. If physicality were subjective, then one person could fall off of something that another person could not fall of by doing the exact same action. That's part of what it means to be subjective.

I have come up with an non-contrived example, so maybe we can use my suggestion instead: Johnny and I both love the taste of whisky. I would judge his taste according to mine. He gets an approval from me for liking the same thing I do. With concern for his health, I stop him from finishing a whole bottle. Subjectivity of whisky taste, with objectivity of alcohol poisoning. Do you think there is anything odd about me approving his great taste in his choice of beverage while stopping him from poisoning himself?

No, but that's a bad analogy for the point. Why are you trying to stop him? Because of what you believe to be a subjective feature of reality or an objective feature of reality? It's the latter. Your analogy throws in a different subjective feature (the taste) that has nothing to do with why you are stopping him.

So, why would it be rational for one to judge Johnny's music choice on one's own taste of music? Or judge Johnny's food choice on one's own taste of ice cream?

Because it would be rational to judge things by the best standard, and conversely irrational to judge things by a lesser standard in light of a better one.

But what does 'best' mean here? You will use that word in its subjective and its objective sense for different things (the best hand in Poker is objective while best here is subjective). You need two different terms for that. If one thinks 'best' should refer to objectively best, then the subjective 'best' really is just something like 'your standard'. Then, you would be saying it is rational to judge things by your standard, and conversely irrational to judge things be a different standard in light of yours. Yet, one would also believe here that 'your standard' is not better than another standard. Why would it be rational to judge things by a standard one doesn't think is a better standard?

If you want to use 'best' in the subjective sense, then choose another term for the objective 'best'. But the argument doesn't change one bit.

[Bust Nak]

There might be confusion about what was meant about switching between simple subjectivism and subjectivism proper, though. I don't seem to have made myself clear there. You seem to think that I was saying an individual can switch back and forth between the two in sharing their personal views on Johnny's child abuse. I don't think that. I think they are different views, where an individual can only hold one of them.

One can ignore the objectivism/subjectivism issue and share one's preference on the act itself. But if one answers the objectivism/subjectivism question, one can't return to simply sharing one's preference. One's view must now take one's answer to that question into account for their judgment of Johnny's action of child.

So far so good, that's what we've agreed upon already. For the objectivism/subjectivism question, my answer is ice-cream taste is a subjective feature of reality, that answer says nothing about my preference, I concur that simply sharing one's preference has zero relevance here for that question. When you ask me what my favorite ice-cream is, I will tell you "vanilla." That is simply sharing one's preference, that's is where the switch from subjectivism proper to simple subjectivism happens, in accordance to a switch to in question.

Believing one's own opinion is not an accurate standard of reality and that one should judge the reality of Johnny's action by that inaccurate standard seems irrational to me.

But you can't tell me why you think that, nor tell me what's wrong with my rationale: given that there is no objective standard to judge the reality of Johnny's action by, one is free to pick any standard as he sees fit. The latest response from this thread of discussion was "but picking a standard is just simple subjectivism" to which my answer is, yeah, it is. How would I judgement on Johnny's action is switching to a different question, hence the switch from subjectivism proper to simple subjectivism.

That's because you are treating it as though it were objective rather than subjective. If physicality were subjective, then one person could fall off of something that another person could not fall of by doing the exact same action. That's part of what it means to be subjective...

No, but that's a bad analogy for the point. Why are you trying to stop him? Because of what you believe to be a subjective feature of reality or an objective feature of reality? It's the latter. Your analogy throws in a different subjective feature (the taste) that has nothing to do with why you are stopping him.

That's the point. Death is objective, not subjective. Of course I would appeal to an objective reason for stopping him. If physicality were somehow subjective, then I would just act according to my taste re: round Earth, sail where you like; whiskey tastes good, drink 10 bottles for all I care.

But what does 'best' mean here? You will use that word in its subjective and its objective sense for different things (the best hand in Poker is objective while best here is subjective). You need two different terms for that. If one thinks 'best' should refer to objectively best, then the subjective 'best' really is just something like 'your standard'.

That's fine. I choose the word "best" because the argument works for both objective and subjective kind of best.

Then, you would be saying it is rational to judge things by your standard, and conversely irrational to judge things be a different standard in light of yours. Yet, one would also believe here that 'your standard' is not better than another standard. Why would it be rational to judge things by a standard one doesn't think is a better standard?

If you want to use 'best' in the subjective sense, then choose another term for the objective 'best'. But the argument doesn't change one bit.

That's right, the argument doesn't change one bit, swap "best" for "favorite" and it's still the same argument: It's rational to pick my favorite ice-cream, and conversely irrational to pick the one that I don't like, even though vanilla isn't an objectively better favor than chocolate. Seems trivial to me, isn't it to you?

[The Tanager]

So far so good, that's what we've agreed upon already. For the objectivism/subjectivism question, my answer is ice-cream taste is a subjective feature of reality, that answer says nothing about my preference, I concur that simply sharing one's preference has zero relevance here for that question. When you ask me what my favorite ice-cream is, I will tell you "vanilla." That is simply sharing one's preference, that's is where the switch from subjectivism proper to simple subjectivism happens, in accordance to a switch to in question.

I'm not asking you about your preference, I'm asking you about your judgment of Johnny's choice. You can choose to judge his choice by your preference, but then that would not be just sharing one's preference, it would also be forming a judgment about the other person. That is not switching back to pure simple subjectivism; it's something in addition to it.

Believing one's own opinion is not an accurate standard of reality and that one should judge the reality of Johnny's action by that inaccurate standard seems irrational to me.

But you can't tell me why you think that, nor tell me what's wrong with my rationale: given that there is no objective standard to judge the reality of Johnny's action by, one is free to pick any standard as he sees fit.

It's rational to say people are free to pick for whatever reason they want, but that's different than saying their choice itself was a rational one. Why do you judge people's beliefs about the shape of the Earth by objective scientific evidence instead of your initial instinct, even if those two things agree?

That's the point. Death is objective, not subjective. Of course I would appeal to an objective reason for stopping him. If physicality were somehow subjective, then I would just act according to my taste re: round Earth, sail where you like; whiskey tastes good, drink 10 bottles for all I care.

But in the thought experiment we are talking about a specific way (which is a subjective feature of reality) that Johnny's objective death will come about. It seems to me like you are saying that, although you love Johnny and subjectively don't want him to die, you would base your action on how physical reality affects you, knowing that it affects Johnny differently and will lead to his death. But if you don't want him to die, then you should base your action on how physical reality affects him.

That's right, the argument doesn't change one bit, swap "best" for "favorite" and it's still the same argument: It's rational to pick my favorite ice-cream, and conversely irrational to pick the one that I don't like, even though vanilla isn't an objectively better favor than chocolate. Seems trivial to me, isn't it to you?

We are talking about your judgment of Johnny's choice, not your ice cream choice. Are you saying that you think it's rational for Johnny to pick your favorite ice cream? That's what I'm saying is irrational.