If morality is subjective...

[Fledge]

I guess I'm mostly curious to see what I can dig up, so here goes. If morality is subjective, then why should anyone care about the moral code of a subjectivist? If all morality is subjective, then isn't that person's moral code restricted solely to that person?

This is a question that only recently occured to me, and I want to know what some of the subjectivists who hang out on this thread think. So to my fellow objectivists, please hold back for a bit. Thanks.

 

[relaxeus]

I guess I'm mostly curious to see what I can dig up, so here goes. If morality is subjective, then why should anyone care about the moral code of a subjectivist? If all morality is subjective, then isn't that person's moral code restricted solely to that person?

I think morality is subjective, but most people share similar positions on certain moral issues and we end up with laws. It's very important to care about everyones moral code because that person has power, we all do. If a persons morality is deemed by me to be very low, say that person has no problem with murder which I have a serious problem with, then I would take the action I deem appropriate. That's what we have to deal with in this world - 6 billion + individuals.

 

[CSmrw]

Morality is subjective, but a society must have rules and must enforce them. Some morality is obviously positive in a social sense and some is not. As a species it makes sense for us to come to agreements on how to deal with the negative morals, and to decide what IS a negative, so we can function. The best moral code I know of is that a human has personal liberty up to the point it directly conflict with another human's personal liberty. This, of course, must be modified when it comes into conflict with a non moral imperative, say driving a car on public streets. Anyone has the right to drive a car, but as a society we have provided public streets and can make rules regarding those streets that we as a society decide are reasonable to the conduction of public business and safety. Hence we can require speed limits, licenses and age limitations if you want to drive your car on our public streets.

The problem with all of this is, of course, that a group can be led to support rules that are arbitrary and only ephemerally based on the public trust. Porn laws, drug laws, double taxation all come about as a result of bending the public trust to include all manner of trite and needless rules. Fear mongering and slippery slope is generally how these laws are passed, but if you look deep enough economics and power are generally behind them.

Still, it's a better system than most that have existed throughout history.

 

[charmtrap]

I guess I'm mostly curious to see what I can dig up, so here goes. If morality is subjective, then why should anyone care about the moral code of a subjectivist? If all morality is subjective, then isn't that person's moral code restricted solely to that person?

This is a question that only recently occured to me, and I want to know what some of the subjectivists who hang out on this thread think. So to my fellow objectivists, please hold back for a bit. Thanks.

I've always thought that the objective/subjective morality divide is a bit of a false dichotomy. In fact, this very question led indirectly to my becoming an atheist, since the idea of arbitrary rules set down which apply in all cases without question makes no sense to me and offends my sense of justice and fairness.

Morality is neither objective nor subjective, and in some ways its both. Obviously, we share certain moral values which have societal benefits, ie. murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. But there are questions on which reasonable people can disagree. I feel, however, that to have any meaning, moral questions must have inherent value. They cannot be simply imposed from above for no discernable reason.

A hypothetical for you: if God said murder was right, would it be right, or would God be wrong?

 

[Dragar]

If morality is subjective, then why should anyone care about the moral code of a subjectivist?

Come on, think about it.

 

[chipmunk]

I'm not entirely sure anyone can adequately even claim they look at morality objectively. How do you remove your personal bias of right and wrong? Sure, I guess we could look to what the majority of society agrees as a compass, those mores--thus we could say that objectively killing another human that has been birthed is wrong, cheating is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. Yet, how do you find the objective morality of same sex marriage, abortion, the wage bracket between the top CEO's and the guy on the bottom, the war in Iraq, comics that depict religious icon's as terrorists, eating meat, drinking alcohol while not using protection and being sexually active, teaching young earth theories in school, teaching evolution in school, etc. What's the objective morality on these and how was it decided?

If morality is subjective, then why should anyone care about the moral code of a subjectivist?

Should is an interesting choice of wording. Whatever the majority subjectively believes can become your laws. Your interest is in knowing where that will affect you personally.

If all morality is subjective, then isn't that person's moral code restricted solely to that person?

Yes, in that it is THEIR moral code and not someone else's. No, in that they probably aren't the only person with that moral code.

 

[Moros]

If morality is subjective, then why should anyone care about the moral code of a subjectivist? If all morality is subjective, then isn't that person's moral code restricted solely to that person?

That's the idea.

3. Any of various theories holding that the only valid standard of judgment is that of the individual.

Nobody should care. That's the whole point.
Moral subjectivism is essentially a rejection of the Herd morality, typically religious.

 

[Fledge]

Sorry about the rather extended delay here, but I don't have as much time to spend online as I might like...

Regardless, I enjoyed reading your replies, and I hope to be able to respond in kind.

relaxeus, I would agree with you that laws are typically the result of having the majority of a society agree on something, but I am curious as to what you would say about a society in which deliberate betrayal and murder of "friends" is considered a high virtue. Since betrayal and murder is the norm, does that make it right for those people?

CSmrw, I've done a bit of thinking about some of the results of a personal liberty-based moral system, and quite frankly, I would agree with a number of the conclusions that would be reached in such a system. However, I'm curious as to your take on whether adultery should be condemned (and why), as well as your take on no-fault divorce laws. Would adultery conflict with the non-cheating spouse's personal liberty? Likewise, if one spouse wants to divorce the other simply because he/she wants to marry somebody else, does that conflict with the personal liberty of the person who wants to remain married?

charmtrap, I would dispute the position that objective morals are inherently "arbitrary", and so I'm wondering what makes a moral code formed by a Deity arbitrary, and a moral code formed by the mind of man not arbitrary. Could you explain the difference?

In answer to your hypothetical, Since God hasn't said murder is right, I don't know what I would think. The world would be a very different place, and likewise the social norms. For an example, I would refer you to the not-so-hypothetical question I asked relaxeus. (The line "Don Richardson: Peace Child" makes a decent google search. I don't have time to track down any specific links though. )

chipmunk, I think you raise some excellent points. Completely removing one's bias from any subject is impossible, IMO, especially in regards to such a touchy subject as morality.

However, the choice of the word "should" was deliberate. By stating that morality is solely the opinion of the individual, doesn't that exclude the possibility of attempting to force others to follow it?

(Just for the record, Jesus' command in Matthew 7:12 gives me all the reason I need to at least listen to what you say about morality. Obviously, agreement isn't included in that, but at least I'll listen...)

 

[CSmrw]

CSmrw, I've done a bit of thinking about some of the results of a personal liberty-based moral system, and quite frankly, I would agree with a number of the conclusions that would be reached in such a system. However, I'm curious as to your take on whether adultery should be condemned (and why), as well as your take on no-fault divorce laws. Would adultery conflict with the non-cheating spouse's personal liberty? Likewise, if one spouse wants to divorce the other simply because he/she wants to marry somebody else, does that conflict with the personal liberty of the person who wants to remain married?

Your personal liberty can't directly conflict with another person's. If you want out of a marriage you should be allowed to go. If you are being left you must accept the other person's right to leave. I don't think marriage should be a lifelong contract anyway. People change. We live to be far older than thirty. It should be a limited contract, a five or ten year one that can be renewed.

 

[relaxeus]

relaxeus, I would agree with you that laws are typically the result of having the majority of a society agree on something, but I am curious as to what you would say about a society in which deliberate betrayal and murder of "friends" is considered a high virtue.

I would say that these people are crazy.

Since betrayal and murder is the norm, does that make it right for those people?

Yeah. If they actually believe that it is actually a high virtue to betray and kill your friends, then they are justified in doing it. Justified by their standard, of course. I'd think they are totally nuts.

 

[Fledge]

Your personal liberty can't directly conflict with another person's. If you want out of a marriage you should be allowed to go. If you are being left you must accept the other person's right to leave. I don't think marriage should be a lifelong contract anyway. People change. We live to be far older than thirty. It should be a limited contract, a five or ten year one that can be renewed.

If someone wants to cheat on his/her spouse, should that be okay too?

 

[Fledge]

I would say that these people are crazy.

Yeah. If they actually believe that it is actually a high virtue to betray and kill your friends, then they are justified in doing it. Justified by their standard, of course. I'd think they are totally nuts.

And if everybody lived in a society like that, would murder ever be wrong?

 

[Dragar]

And if everybody lived in a society like that, would murder ever be wrong?

If it's subjective, your question makes no sense without specifying to who it would be wrong to.

 

[relaxeus]

And if everybody lived in a society like that, would murder ever be wrong?

That depends on peoples beliefs. They may think that literally backstabbing friends is ok, but they may think that its not right to kill enemies. All depends on what their perspectives are.

 

[CSmrw]

If someone wants to cheat on his/her spouse, should that be okay too?

OK to whom? If you enter a relationship with anyone and you do something that violates the understanding you have with the other party you are going to make the other person unhappy, more than likely. If that is OK to you, knock yourself out. But you run the ristk of the other person bailing on you and spreading word through your circle of acqaintences that you are not trustworthy. If you can figure out how to have a good life with all this going on you are one in a million. But if you are OK with this situation, then it's OK.

 

[DrFate]

November moon
Morality is subjective
A thousand cricketts sing

 

[Fledge]

That depends on peoples beliefs. They may think that literally backstabbing friends is ok, but they may think that its not right to kill enemies. All depends on what their perspectives are.

So right and wrong are cultural phenomenon as much as anything else?

 

[elman]

So right and wrong are cultural phenomenon as much as anything else?

and the killing of millions is ok if you think it is. And the torturing of babies and small puppies is ok too if that is what pleases you. I would not want to live in that world. I am glad it is not this one.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

and the killing of millions is ok if you think it is. And the torturing of babies and small puppies is ok too if that is what pleases you. I would not want to live in that world. I am glad it is not this one.

That world is, indeed, this one. Look around you. There are people all over who think it is ok to kill, to rape, to torture. The fact that you and I agree that these things aren't ok doesn't counter the fact that others think they ARE okay.

 

[alerj123]

So right and wrong are cultural phenomenon as much as anything else?

Yes, they are. Here's a good example. Many in the middle east felt very strongly that the September 11th attacks were completely justified and good. They felt and still do feel that it was extreamly right.

obviously most people in America would disagree.

Another example, here's one within christianity. The people i europe who took part in the crusades thought they were 100 percent right and justfied by God. Modern Christians, i assume, disagree.

Right and wrong are subjective and determined by each individual culture. Whether that is a good or bad thing bears no relevence to its truth.