Deviancy in subjective morality

[bluethread]

It has been proposed that morality is subjective and is established over time as certain behaviors are deemed to be counter productive by consensus. If that is indeed the case, then don't deviants provide an important public service by helping to define the limits of acceptable behavior and affecting social change. Given that progressives seem to believe that current morality is always superior to previous morality, aren't today's deviants to be respected as brave pioneers for engaging in antisocial behaviors that may very well become the norm tomorrow?

[Divine Insight]

@ Bluethread,

Consider the following:

The United States of America stands for democratic FREEDOM. Freedom of individuals to live their own lives as they see fit (within the secular laws that are in place to protect the citizens of the state).

Women have rights. They are free to dress however they like. Exposing naked legs and cleavage, and wear make-up and be all manner of sexually flirtatious if they so desire. They are also free to vote, and to speak out freely, even on matter of religion, or to even argue with men if they so desire. A woman can even file for divorce against her husband simply because she's sick of living with him. We have many human rights. We are even starting to recognize the rights of homosexual relationships and marriage.

All of this is based on totally subjective FREEDOM to choose our own moral values as we personally see fit. Women who think that exposing flesh and being sexually flirtatious is immoral have the right to cover themselves up. Women who think speaking out in public or arguing with a man is immoral have the right to keep silent. Heterosexuals who think that homosexual relationships are immoral have the right to remain strictly heterosexual.

The United States of America supports the rights of subjective morality.

However, now consider the Islamic State:

The Islamic State rejects subjective morality and demands the strict absolute objective morality of Allah. They have God behind them. They don't merely have a subjective opinion. They have the objective morality of Allah on their side.

They demand that woman have no rights. Women must cover their bodies entirely and even their faces. Women must never speak out publicly on matters of religion or important political matters, and they must never argue with a man.

Homosexuals are to be stoned to death as per Allah's commandments.

~~~~~

So do you then support the "Objective Right" of the Islamic State to impose their "Objective Morality" onto the United States of America, even if this means making war against the American heathens and killing them off until they comply to the "Objective Morality" of Allah?

And if you don't support this, then where do you think your position in support of "objective morality" will ultimately lead?

[Divine Insight]

It is all well and good to say that every individual has their own subjective sense of morality, but how is one then justified to impose their personal sense of morality on another when there is a conflict?

That's my whole point Bluethread.

You are never justified in imposing your personal sense of morality on another.

There is never a time when this can be justified beyond your own personal sense of what you consider to be moral. In other words, just as morality is subjective so is justification. If you subjectively justify pushing your moral values onto someone else then that justification itself is your subjective opinion.

Then one can not say that murder is immoral. It might be immoral for one person, but it is not immoral for another. Since the one person can not impose that ones morality onto another, then that one is not justified in stopping the other from committing murder.

We've already been through this.

A secular society can indeed make secular laws to protect the health and well-being of its own citizens. No moral judgement required.

There is no need to say that murder is "immoral". All that needs to be said is that murder is "illegal".

There is no need for any concept of morality here.

[Lionofthetribeofjudah]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

The general consensus should NEVER be considered as being right or wrong in a God fearing society if this determination is based purely on the opinions of the masses, meaning that is accepted as fact that most people think this way, and not on the written words of GOD. The scriptures are clear in the understanding that we need to follow GOD and not our own minds or a multitude. Read Exodus 23:2, Proverbs 3:5-6, Ecclesiasticus 5:2, Jeremiah 17:9

[Divine Insight]

The scriptures are clear in the understanding that we need to follow GOD and not our own minds or a multitude.

I have no doubt that this is indeed what the scriptures demand. But that's meaningless to me. I'm 100% convinced that the scriptures you have cited are nothing more than the arrogant subjective opinions of the humans who wrote those scriptures. So who are they to demand that we follow their opinions?

I don't accept that those scriptures have anything to do with any GOD (as you put it in all caps).

[Bust Nak]

Then one can not say that murder is immoral. It might be immoral for one person, but it is not immoral for another.

This seems to be a non sequitur:

1) Murder is immoral for A.
2) Murder is not immoral for B.
...
n) Therefore one cannot not say murder is immoral.

Fill in the gap for me.

Meanwhile I would suggest the following for inspection:

1) Murder is immoral for A.
2) Therefore the statement "murder is immoral" is true from A's point of view.
3) Therefore A can say murder is immoral.

[bluethread]

No, I said I never thought of morality as a visceral reaction, ie. as nothing more than a visceral reaction. That is why I clarified the statement by saying it is a factor.

I see. But I wouldn't say it's nothing more than a visceral reaction either, I would simply call it a feeling, some stonger than other, strong enough to be labelled as visceral reaction.

It shows the dissonance that often exists between mental subjectivity(this looks like murder) and visceral subjectivity(this doesn't feel like murder). Are there not different forms of subjectivity other than visceral subjectivity that contribute to one's morality?

It is just what it feels like that matters. What it looks like does not contribute to morality directly, but only in the sense that what it looks like would obviously affects what it feels like.

Ok, we'll use the term feelings. You are presuming that all morality is based on feelings. So, murder is not wrong, as long as it feels right? How does a society like that work? If one person feels that murder is right and another feels murder is wrong, how is that conflict resolved? To what does one appeal?

Not necessarily, this presumes a visceral subjectivism.

No, it presumes public acceptance changes over time, an presumption that is well supported by historical observation. That much, I am sure you would agree is fact. What is debatable whether acceptance is the whole of morality itself, or mere preception of some underlying truths.

However, you just said, "It is just what it feels like that matters." What is the proper way for establishing public acceptance. If the public accepts slavery, opposition to abortion, the execution of homosexuals and other things that you think are immoral, are they moral due to public acceptance?

If all morality is visceral subjective morality, does it make sense to teach people that murder is wrong?

Sure, it makes perfect sense to do what you can to stop what is really revolting to you, no?

Those who have a visceral reaction need not be taught and teaching would be of no use to those who have no visceral response. All one is left with is visceral programming, ie. A Clockwork Orange.

It not be as extreme as that, I already mentioned that I get my moral rules from a combination of instinct which needs not be taught, AND upbringing and other social conditioning which is taught.

However, you began this post by saying, "It is just what it feels like that matters." Do you still hold to that, or is it instinct, upbringing and other social conditioning. Either way, how can one then say that slavery, opposition to abortion, the execution of homosexual and other things are wrong. On what basis does one fault such a society? It is established by public acceptance, right?

Well, in a truly subjective society couldn't slavery, exclusive conjugal marriage and fetal rights be the subjective social morality? If, as has been argued, all morality is subjective, then would that not prove that such is the case?

It could, And it was, it just is no longer the case. There is no reason why it must remain the case, if that's what you were suggesting.

It is also not immoral in anything but your view, correct?

They might, if you can show that there is a society that has an exclusively subjective moral code. That is what we are examining here.

I don't think there is one that is exclusively subjective, I can however point you to any Western country (or indeed any society where lying is considered wrong but not officially outlawed) and it would be one that is somewhat subjective, would that do?

Not if there is no such thing as objective morality. If society is an admixture of subjective and objective morality, then I would agree with that.

You are speaking of an objective reality and subjective perception. This does not speak to morality. Morality isn't about what causes something, it is about how people should act given what causes something. If objective reality tells us that gravitational force is a function of mass and distance, velocity is a function of force applied over distance, and human life should be respected, as you appear to see as a given, then one should not jump off a cliff without a means to counter gravitational force. Is this conclusion an objective or subjective moral standard, and why?

There is two things here. I am saying there IS of an objective reality about morality - it is either subjective or it isn't; just as gravity is either caused by curvature in spacetime or it isn't. AND subjective perception - I see morality as subjective and you see it as objective; just as post-Einstein scientists see gravity as curves and eariler scientists see gravity as a classical force. (The difference here is that curves vs force is not collectively exhaustive, it may not be either; where as subjectivism vs objectivism is, it has to be one or the other.)

I did not say that I see morality as objective. I am just making comparisons in an attempt to understand how subjective morality works in a society. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't some moral standards be objective and others subjective?

What I am NOT saying is objective reality tells us human life should be respected, it is far from given. In fact I actively deny such a time. Objective reality does not tells us any "should" or "ought" at all.

That is my reason for asking how that works in a society. On what basis does one argue for one moral standard over another?

That does not address the question. It just shows that in certain societies the protection and safety of the citizens of the society is the basis for law. What about societies where the protection and safety of the despot is the basis for law. Isn't that also a possible subjective morality?

Yes. It is a possible subjective morality.

If so, then isn't presuming the protection and safety of the citizens of the society as the basis for law establishing an objective morality?

No, it's establishing an subjective morality that happens to be the general consensus. Think beauty contests, I hope you'd agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and yet such contests do come up with a winner. The judges came up with a winner without presuming there is some objective beauty as basis, all they need is their own personal taste, and an awareness of public taste.

So, someone arguing from subjective morality can not honestly say anything is right or wrong unless they first establish a consensus, right?

Then, if one or the other can be established, on a subjective basis, on what basis does one resolve conflicts between various personal moralities?

Any number of ways, for example, by appealing to rationality.

Then one would have to reach a consensus regarding rationality first. Didn't you begin this post by saying, "It is just what it feels like that matters."? Wouldn't that make rationality just a ruse for making people feel better? That would make rationality nothing more than sophistry.

It is all well and good to say that every individual has their own subjective sense of morality, but how is one then justified to impose their personal sense of morality on another when there is a conflict?

Does one need any more justification than "it is the right thing to do?"

Obama doesn't seem to think so. However, if my subjective morality is as good as your subjective reality, "It is the right thing to do." is a meaningless argument. The counter to that is, "It is not." Followed by, "'Tis to." Then on and on until someone declares war.

[Divine Insight]

However, if my subjective morality is as good as your subjective reality, "It is the right thing to do." is a meaningless argument. The counter to that is, "It is not." Followed by, "'Tis to." Then on and on until someone declares war.

And this has pretty much been the history of humanity hasn't it?

They've even been having this as "Holy Wars" where each side proclaims that some absolute objective God supports their subjective morality.

Also consider the following:

However, if my subjective morality is as good as your subjective reality, "It is the right thing to do." is a meaningless argument.

The "Right Thing" doesn't need to be judged in terms of morality.

We've already been through this several times.

If a secular society decides that it should protect the members of its society (the very point of being a social group in the first place). The the "Right Thing" to do is to protect the citizens of the state.

In this case the "Right Thing" has nothing to do with morality. It's just the "Right Thing" to do if we want to achieve the objective of protecting the citizens of the society. Thus we can still come to a logical rational consensus of what the "Right Thing" to do is, without even bringing a concept of morality into the picture. We already have an objective in mind. We have a goal to be reached. Thus we can decide the "Right" course of action based on those objectives.

In fact, when you referenced Obama that may very well have been his motivation as well. He may not have even been thinking in terms of morality. He may have simply been thinking in terms of the objectives of the constitution of the USA. Or the idea of standing behind "Human Rights"

We can speak about what the "Right Thing" is to do for humanity without necessarily bringing morality into the picture at all.

In fact, as you continually point out, morality is a totally useless concept in any case unless everyone is in agreement with some "Absolute Morality".

But where can you point to any "Absolute morality"?

In fact, UNTIL you can point to an "Absolute morality" none of your arguments against subjective morality even make any sense at all.

WHERE is this absolute objective morality that you believe exists?

Produce that FIRST, then we can talk.

Otherwise you don't even have anything to point to. All you have are subjective opinions yourself.

Where is this objective morality? Where can it be found?

If you can't produce it, then there isn't much sense in even discussing it.

You're proposing something that doesn't even exist, and that you can't even point to.

[Bust Nak]

Ok, we'll use the term feelings. You are presuming that all morality is based on feelings. So, murder is not wrong, as long as it feels right?

And objectivists presume that all morality is not based on feelings but external facts. But we are not here to argue that whether subjectivism is true or not, but to understand subjectivism, right? So on to your question, yes, bear in mind that feeling right here mean morally right, as opposed to feeling nice.

How does a society like that work? If one person feels that murder is right and another feels murder is wrong, how is that conflict resolved? To what does one appeal?

I answered that already, any number of ways, examples include, by consensus, with appeals to rationality.

However, you just said, "It is just what it feels like that matters." What is the proper way for establishing public acceptance. If the public accepts slavery, opposition to abortion, the execution of homosexuals and other things that you think are immoral, are they moral due to public acceptance?

As with all things subjective, that depends on who you are asking. Since you are asking me, the answer is: no, they are immoral because I think they are immoral, and not acceptable by me.

However, you began this post by saying, "It is just what it feels like that matters." Do you still hold to that, or is it instinct, upbringing and other social conditioning.

I don't think I have to pick one over the other at all. How I feel is the result of a combination of instinct and social conditioning.

Either way, how can one then say that slavery, opposition to abortion, the execution of homosexual and other things are wrong. On what basis does one fault such a society? It is established by public acceptance, right?

On personal feelings, if you are asking me; on consensus, if you are asking a group of us. If slavery, opposition to abortion, the execution of homosexual is established by public acceptance, the obviously said society would not say those things are wrong. My society feels otherwise would say they are wrong.

It is also not immoral in anything but your view, correct?

Triple negatives! Does that simplifies to "it is immoral only in my view?" Slavery is immoral in my view sure, but also immoral in other people's view. Slavery is not immoral or moral outside of people's view.

Not if there is no such thing as objective morality. If society is an admixture of subjective and objective morality, then I would agree with that.

I would say society is an admixture of subjectivists and objectivists. Morality is either subjective or it isn't, it is never mixed.

Here is aother analogy: the world is filled with a mix of Christians and non Christians. Christians thinks we are all created by the Christian God, non Christians thinks otherwise. Either Christianity is correct, or it is incorrect. The scenario where some of us are created by God, while other of us are not created, would never be true.

I did not say that I see morality as objective. I am just making comparisons in an attempt to understand how subjective morality works in a society.

Ok, I assumed you are an objectivist, have you decided which side you support?

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't some moral standards be objective and others subjective?

With moral subjectivism define along the lines of morality is mind-dependent and objectivism defined as morality is mind-independent, is it enough to say they are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive?

That is my reason for asking how that works in a society. On what basis does one argue for one moral standard over another?

How do you argue any opinion? By finding common ground and start from there. Rationality would be a typical common ground between people, no?

So, someone arguing from subjective morality can not honestly say anything is right or wrong unless they first establish a consensus, right?

No, do you need to establish a consensus before you can say person X is beautiful? Having said that you do have to have a consensus from judges to get person X to win a beauty contest. Substitute "X is beautiful" with "murder is immoral," and "X winning a beauty contest" with "making murder illegal."

Then one would have to reach a consensus regarding rationality first. Didn't you begin this post by saying, "It is just what it feels like that matters."? Wouldn't that make rationality just a ruse for making people feel better? That would make rationality nothing more than sophistry.

What it feels like is about what is morally right, appealing to rationality is about convinging others that it is morally right. The two doesn't conflict at all.

Obama doesn't seem to think so. However, if my subjective morality is as good as your subjective reality, "It is the right thing to do." is a meaningless argument. The counter to that is, "It is not." Followed by, "'Tis to." Then on and on until someone declares war.

Right you are. You are getting the hang of it. As war is exactly what we see through out history, I would use that as evidence that moral subjectivism is indeed accurate in describing reality.

[Divine Insight]

Obama doesn't seem to think so. However, if my subjective morality is as good as your subjective reality, "It is the right thing to do." is a meaningless argument. The counter to that is, "It is not." Followed by, "'Tis to." Then on and on until someone declares war.

Right you are. You are getting the hang of it. As war is exactly what we see through out history, I would use that as evidence that moral subjectivism is indeed accurate in describing reality.

Truly. This is indeed what reality reveals to us. Not only is everyone's sense of morality subjective, but many wars have even been fought on disagreements over what each side subjectively thinks "objective morality" should be.

I want to know.

I demand to know.

Where is this objective morality?

Where can anyone point to any absolute objective morality that will stop all wars? And how do they intend to sell their ideals as being anything more than their own subjective opinions?

Where is this absolute objective morality?

No one throughout all of history has ever been able to point to it. All they point to are ancient unverifiable religious folklore claiming that their subjectively chosen favorite folklore should be used as the absolute moral standard and code.

Yet, those very texts contain many things that many people very strongly reject as being immoral and unethical.

So where are we going to find these supposed objective morals?

Until someone can produce them there is no evidence that any such thing exists anyway.

So we have no choice. If we want to consider a concept called "Morality" then we're going to need to make it up ourselves. It's a human invention. We subjectively invent the idea and we then necessarily subjectively define it.

There simply is no other way to go about it.

Moreover, we don't even need this concept to have a society or laws. Laws shouldn't be based on morality anyway. They don't need to be. In fact, in the case of things like traffic laws it wouldn't even make sense to try to make them based on morality.

[Lionofthetribeofjudah]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

First of all, for any individual (such as yourself) to accept that any scripture has divine significance, that individual must first believe that THE HOLY BIBLE IS the divinely inspired word of GOD. Now if you do not believe that, then I would say that you are entitled to your unbelief, but be mindful that the scripture says in Ecclesiasticus 3:24 that "many are deceived by their own vain opinion" and also in Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was l cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world" And I
offer you the truth that Satan, that old serpent, since the very beginning, has always sought to discredit the words of GOD. Now, bear in mind what the scripture says in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" and also 2Peter 1:21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." So contrary to your opinions The Bible is not the arrogance of men, but in truth it is the Words of God. Nevertheless, as GOD so eloquently put it in Romans 3:3-4 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar".