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]

Authority, not just your personal subjective desire for your wishes to be fulfilled?

That's right.

If so, then why do you have this authority over others?

I was born with it. Much like how you were born with the authority to have a favourite ice-cream favor.

And, analagously, if the shape of the Earth was subjective, then people who think it flat still are obligated to believe it is spherical because that is what you believe?

No, not quite. They obligated to believe it is spherical because that is what I want them to believe, which is not necessarily the same thing as what I believe. I could believe the Earth is a ball, and obliged them to believe it's flat. I don't see why I would but I could.

[The Tanager]

I was born with it. Much like how you were born with the authority to have a favourite ice-cream favor.

The authority to have a favorite ice cream flavor? How is that authority?

And you are saying it is objectively true that you have this authority? If so, then what support do you have for that belief being true?

[Bust Nak]

The authority to have a favorite ice cream flavor? How is that authority?

It is authority because you have the power have a favorite and no one can stop you.

And you are saying it is objectively true that you have this authority?

Yes.

If so, then what support do you have for that belief being true?

My objectively verified power to do this and the lack of anyone who can stop me.

[The Tanager]

It is authority because you have the power have a favorite and no one can stop you.

That sounds like having a will, not having authority, i.e., being able to create obligations on other wills.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #604]

Can't it be both? Either way, it's analogous with ice-cream favor, I don't particularly care about the labels in this instance.

[The Tanager]

Can't it be both? Either way, it's analogous with ice-cream favor, I don't particularly care about the labels in this instance.

You can certainly believe it is both, but each claim needs to be supported. What you have offered so far seems to me to support that you have a will, not that your will is an authority over other wills. What is the support for that second claim?

[Bust Nak]

You can certainly believe it is both, but each claim needs to be supported. What you have offered so far seems to me to support that you have a will, not that your will is an authority over other wills. What is the support for that second claim?

I already told you what that support is - my objectively verified power to do this thing and the lack of anyone who can stop me.

[The Tanager]

I already told you what that support is - my objectively verified power to do this thing and the lack of anyone who can stop me.

To me that sounds like you are saying your will is not just a will, but a will with authority over other wills because:

(1) It is a will (i.e., having an objectively verified power to do this thing, which, in context, seems to mean a desire that your will is followed by others)

and

(2) Other people can't control my will

If that is what you are saying, then I don't see why you think your conclusion follows from the truth of (1) and (2). If that is not what you are saying, then can you help me see what you are saying?

[Bust Nak]

To me that sounds like you are saying your will is not just a will, but a will with authority over other wills because:

(1) It is a will (i.e., having an objectively verified power to do this thing, which, in context, seems to mean a desire that your will is followed by others)

and

(2) Other people can't control my will

If that is what you are saying, then I don't see why you think your conclusion follows from the truth of (1) and (2). If that is not what you are saying, then can you help me see what you are saying?

I don't know how to answer you, because this seem like a trivial fit to the definition of "authority," the conclusion follows because that's what having the authority means - I can do it and no one can stop me, this much you've affirmed. Tell me why that is somehow different from having the authority to do it? I can formulate an answer around that.

And if this is just another semantics issue, then lets roll back to the original question that sparked this tangent: why do I wanting him to do something obligate him to do so? It's because I have the power to obligate him and he can't stop me. Bypassing the word "authority."

[The Tanager]

I don't know how to answer you, because this seem like a trivial fit to the definition of "authority," the conclusion follows because that's what having the authority means - I can do it and no one can stop me, this much you've affirmed. Tell me why that is somehow different from having the authority to do it? I can formulate an answer around that.

And if this is just another semantics issue, then lets roll back to the original question that sparked this tangent: why do I wanting him to do something obligate him to do so? It's because I have the power to obligate him and he can't stop me. Bypassing the word "authority."

I don't see how you have the power to obligate him. You have the power to want him to follow your desire and he can't stop that, sure. You can want the economic policy to not be passed. The lawmakers have the authority to decide, though. A police officer has authority to do certain actions that non-police officers do not.