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]

When I ask you what your preference regarding pistachio ice cream flavor is, you will answer that you don't prefer it. But if I ask you if you are okay with Johnny eating pistachio ice cream, you will not think that I am asking you to judge Johnny's action according to what you just stated your preference on pistachio ice cream was. With food taste, you would seem to answer that they are distinct preferences being asked about. In the one case, you dislike the taste of pistachio ice cream, and in the other, you like Johnny expressing freedom in personal taste.

That much is correct, but I don't see how that changes anything I said. "I like Johnny expressing freedom in personal taste" is still simple subjectivism. You are still asking what I think in the sense of being okay with it, you are still asking me to judge Johnny's action according to my preference, as opposed to whether my judgment is based on a subjective standard or an objective one, i.e. subjectivism proper vs objectivism.

You would then seem to say that you are doing the same thing with morality. In the one case, you dislike child abuse, and in the other, you dislike Johnny expressing freedom in moral taste. That's fine, but let's return to the question I was asking. Why are you not okay with Johnny acting on his preference concerning child abuse rather than your preference concerning child abuse? If your response is "because my preference is to not be okay with Johnny acting on his preference rather than mine," than this is the tautology I keep harking on. You aren't answering the question. You would be saying that "I'm not okay with Johnny's child abuse because I'm not okay with Johnny's child abuse."

But I'm asking why you are not okay with it, while you are okay with other expressions of personal freedom when you think the expression involves a subjective feature of reality (and not okay with personal freedom matters involving objective features of reality).

That's right, I stated as much in my response, any reason I give you can be reduced to I am not okay with it because I am not okay with it. I asked you why you like certain kinds of music months ago, you spoke of rhythm and melody, you spoke of the feelings it invoke. You appealed to the very same tautology you keep harking on. Instead of giving you such reasons, I avoided the tautology by simply pointing out that's how my brain works.

Yes, but that explanation is accurate and gives us a clearer picture of your preferences. We wouldn't stop our scientific exploration of why vitamins are good for you at: "well, they are good for you." The explanation broadens and we get a clearer picture of what it means for vitamins to be good for you, without changing the general fact that they are good for you. That's what I'm asking for here.

You say that's what you are asking for but I wonder if that is really what you are asking for. There are of course explanations for why I prefer the things I prefer, but such explanations are be beyond the scope of subjectivism vs objectivism, beyond the scope of what I am thinking or my reasoning; such explanations are instead in the realm of psychology, evolutionary biology or perhaps sociology. I don't like child abuse because evolution wired it into me, because my parents installed such ideas into me in my formative years. Is that the kind of answers you were really after?

I asked three questions... If you think both are subjective elements of reality, then why is that the reason for your moral answer, but not for the answer on food taste?

But it is the same, which is why I didn't repeat myself: I am not okay with it because that's the way I roll. I am wired that way. There is no accounting for taste. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Any reason I give you can be reduced to I am not okay with it because I am not okay with it. An answer along the lines of "because he is hurting a child" can be followed up with a "why are you not okay with him hurting children?"

The answer you quoted was for the forth question: "How does that element of reality being objective or subjective factor into your answers?" In one sense it doesn't, since the context of three prior questions (re: Earth shape, ice-cream, child abuse) was simple subjectivism. In another sense it is a factor in deciding the appropriate standard depending whether an element of reality is objective or subjective.

[The Tanager]

The answer you quoted was for the forth question: "How does that element of reality being objective or subjective factor into your answers?" In one sense it doesn't, since the context of three prior questions (re: Earth shape, ice-cream, child abuse) was simple subjectivism. In another sense it is a factor in deciding the appropriate standard depending whether an element of reality is objective or subjective.

The fourth question was meant as a sub-question that could play a role in how you answer the first three. I didn't mean it as a completely separate kind of question.

But it is the same, which is why I didn't repeat myself: I am not okay with it because that's the way I roll. I am wired that way. There is no accounting for taste. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Any reason I give you can be reduced to I am not okay with it because I am not okay with it.

But we still look at the unreduced answers when talking about why vitamins are good for you rather than what that could be reduced to. Why? Because that is what is being asked. And it is good to ask that kind of question because deeper knowledge comes out of asking for the logical reasons why one thinks vitamins are good.

You say that's what you are asking for but I wonder if that is really what you are asking for. There are of course explanations for why I prefer the things I prefer, but such explanations are be beyond the scope of subjectivism vs objectivism, beyond the scope of what I am thinking or my reasoning; such explanations are instead in the realm of psychology, evolutionary biology or perhaps sociology. I don't like child abuse because evolution wired it into me, because my parents installed such ideas into me in my formative years. Is that the kind of answers you were really after?

I don't agree that it goes beyond the scope of subjectivism vs. objectivism. Those other fields may help inform your answer, but your answer is still a subjective or objective kind of answer.

From what I can gather, so far, you are okay with Johnny eating pistachio ice cream because it increases overall happiness. Is that not a factor in your moral choices? Can you not break from your socio-biological history on moral matters at all? If not, then why can two people from the same family come to two different moral preferences on a matter?

If one can, then is increasing overall happiness a factor in your moral choices? If so, then how do you judge that? And why do you think that Johnny abusing that child does not increase overall happiness?

[Bust Nak]

The fourth question was meant as a sub-question that could play a role in how you answer the first three. I didn't mean it as a completely separate kind of question.

Well there is no accounting for taste. I don't know what kind of answers you were expecting, when I asked you about music, you just referred to your own feelings.

But we still look at the unreduced answers when talking about why vitamins are good for you rather than what that could be reduced to. Why? Because that is what is being asked. And it is good to ask that kind of question because deeper knowledge comes out of asking for the logical reasons why one thinks vitamins are good.

That's where science comes in, I still think it is beyond the scope of subjectivism vs. objectivism.

I don't agree that it goes beyond the scope of subjectivism vs. objectivism. Those other fields may help inform your answer, but your answer is still a subjective or objective kind of answer.

This is not about my taste as to what I am okay with or not okay with anymore, it's about my taste as a factual matter. There is an objective answer as to why I have the taste that I do (as opposed to whether that answer is objective or subjective in nature.) In short, this is a "is the Earth round" question rather than "is the shape of the Earth objective or subjective" or the "do you like the shape of the Earth" questions.

From what I can gather, so far, you are okay with Johnny eating pistachio ice cream because it increases overall happiness. Is that not a factor in your moral choices?

Sure, but like I said, that can be reduced to I am okay with it because I am okay with it, because there is no accounting for taste. In the context of this debate, I see no interesting difference between "I like A" and "I like these aspects of A." The details are only interesting when one is trying to convince someone to like or dislike A.

Can you not break from your socio-biological history on moral matters at all?

Yes in the sense that people change based on new experiences; no in a sense that's new experience are just the latest additions to ones socio-biology history, any changes are just a reflection of an newly updated socio-biology history. I would imagine you would give similar answers if the context is food taste.

If not, then why can two people from the same family come to two different moral preferences on a matter?

There is a lot more to one's socio-biology history than being raised in the same family.

If one can, then is increasing overall happiness a factor in your moral choices?

Sure, as would anything that affects how much I like something.

If so, then how do you judge that? And why do you think that Johnny abusing that child does not increase overall happiness?

Any number of ways. From intuition to critical studies.

[The Tanager]

If so, then how do you judge that? And why do you think that Johnny abusing that child does not increase overall happiness?

Any number of ways. From intuition to critical studies.

I'm not asking for its origin, but the reasoning of it. If you don't want to look deeper into that, then I don't see this discussion moving forward. Objectivism/subjectivism proper is philosophy and it's a part of the question I'm asking you. I see it as going beyond "my taste is X," and not being a completely separate question from what one's taste is. We seem to completely disagree on both respects there. We've tried to dig deeper on this in various ways, but we are right back here.

[Bust Nak]

I'm not asking for its origin, but the reasoning of it. If you don't want to look deeper into that, then I don't see this discussion moving forward.

I am not talking about origin though, I gave a different answer for origin, I said it's evolution and parenting (or socio-biological history as you put it) in a previous post. With the bit you quote here, I was telling you how I go about evaluating utility (happiness) of a situation, that's "reasoning" isn't it?

Objectivism/subjectivism proper is philosophy and it's a part of the question I'm asking you. I see it as going beyond "my taste is X," and not being a completely separate question from what one's taste is. We seem to completely disagree on both respects there. We've tried to dig deeper on this in various ways, but we are right back here.

I asked why don't you like country music, you mentioned not liking 'twang,' not liking rhythm or pace, not liking the lyrics. How do you judge that, and more to the point what does any of that has to do with objectivism/subjective proper?

[The Tanager]

If so, then how do you judge that? And why do you think that Johnny abusing that child does not increase overall happiness?

Any number of ways. From intuition to critical studies.

I'm not asking for its origin, but the reasoning of it. If you don't want to look deeper into that, then I don't see this discussion moving forward.

I am not talking about origin though, I gave a different answer for origin, I said it's evolution and parenting (or socio-biological history as you put it) in a previous post. With the bit you quote here, I was telling you how I go about evaluating utility (happiness) of a situation, that's "reasoning" isn't it?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your response, then. To me "intuition" is a kind of opposite to "reason." And I interpreted "critical studies" in a sociological sense.

I asked why don't you like country music, you mentioned not liking 'twang,' not liking rhythm or pace, not liking the lyrics. How do you judge that, and more to the point what does any of that has to do with objectivism/subjective proper?

Talking about why I like a certain type of music is not objectivism/subjectivism. Talking about why I like people (including myself) exercising their aesthetic freedom is, though.

[Bust Nak]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your response, then. To me "intuition" is a kind of opposite to "reason." And I interpreted "critical studies" in a sociological sense.

By intuition I meant judging how much cost and benefit in terms of happiness (or simply utility) by feel. How do you judge how much happiness you gain from the rhythm of a piece of music, if not by feel? As for sociology, it is apt for evaluation overall happiness, isn't it?

Talking about why I like a certain type of music is not objectivism/subjectivism. Talking about why I like people (including myself) exercising their aesthetic freedom is, though.

Why?!?! I don't get you at all, why would the nature of the question of "why do you like X" change along with X?

[The Tanager]

By intuition I meant judging how much cost and benefit in terms of happiness (or simply utility) by feel. How do you judge how much happiness you gain from the rhythm of a piece of music, if not by feel?

Yes, but we are talking about judging various intuitions of happiness. The abuser has a feeling of happiness when abusing the child. The child has a feeling of happiness when not being abused. How do you judge between those? Why do you conclude that Johnny abusing the child decreases the overall happiness?

As for sociology, it is apt for evaluation overall happiness, isn't it?

I'm not sure that it is. It tells us what human societies think brings overall happiness, but philosophy tackles evaluating those human systems.

Talking about why I like a certain type of music is not objectivism/subjectivism. Talking about why I like people (including myself) exercising their aesthetic freedom is, though.

Why?!?! I don't get you at all, why would the nature of the question of "why do you like X" change along with X?[/quote]

I'm not sure I understand you. I'm saying:

X = Music taste is a subjective feature of reality

Changing X would seem to mean saying:

X = Music taste is an objective feature of reality

If that is the change you are talking about, then how I feel about X does change. If music taste were objective, then I would be against people listening to objectively worse music. If music taste is subjective, then I am for people listening to what they like. This is the reason I'm against Flat Earth theory being taught as true: because there is an objective shape of the Earth. If the shape of Earth were subjective, then I would not be against Flat Earth theory being taught as true for some people. Whether something is an objective or subjective feature of reality absolutely comes into whether I like it being done or not.

This change also seems to come into play for you because you are against teaching Flat Earth theory as true because the shape of the Earth is objective rather than subjective. If it were subjective, didn't you say you wouldn't be against it?

[Bust Nak]

Yes, but we are talking about judging various intuitions of happiness. The abuser has a feeling of happiness when abusing the child.

Yes, various intuitions of happiness, hence my answer: Any number of ways. From intuition to critical studies.

I'm not sure that it is. It tells us what human societies think brings overall happiness, but philosophy tackles evaluating those human systems.

Philosophy seems like a cheap substitute in cases when there is a scientific answer. I am not going to appeal to philosophic thesis on whether the universe has a beginning or is eternal, when science can demonstrate that it's expanding.

If that is the change you are talking about, then how I feel about X does change. If music taste were objective, then I would be against people listening to objectively worse music. If music taste is subjective, then I am for people listening to what they like. This is the reason I'm against Flat Earth theory being taught as true: because there is an objective shape of the Earth. If the shape of Earth were subjective, then I would not be against Flat Earth theory being taught as true for some people. Whether something is an objective or subjective feature of reality absolutely comes into whether I like it being done or not.

Right, but the point is, in both cases, you are still talking about your likes and dislikes AKA simple subjectivism. The nature of the X changes, but not the nature of the question - why do you like X.

Perhaps more to the point, why isn't the same point you raised here applicable for why you like/dislike certain kinds of music? Along the lines of "if music taste were objective, then I would like the objectively best music. If music taste is subjective, then I would like music that invoke the desire feelings via its rhythm, melody and lyrics" which would make talking about "why I like a certain type of music" as much objectivism vs subjectivism proper, as "why liking people (including myself) exercising their aesthetic freedom" is objectivism vs subjectivism proper.

[The Tanager]

I am not following. Do you believe this question (why do you like X?) is a simple subjectivism question?

Yes. It is about the content of one's personal opinion, in a manner different from factual statements about those personal preferences, such as "it is true that Bust Nak likes vanilla ice-cream."

What do you mean by 'like' here?

The usual meaning, as documented by dictionaries, here is an definition "find agreeable, enjoyable, or satisfactory."

I believe there are objectively moral actions, even though sometimes I don't 'like' what I think the moral action is. So, even if I 'liked' aesthetic freedom naturally, if music taste was an objective feature of reality, then I would be against aesthetic freedom.

Okay, but would you be against the kinds of music that does not align with the objective music standard, even if you 'liked' them?