If morality is subjective...

[Stinker]

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.

What one writer said years ago comes in well at this point. He said that over three-hundred years ago people were putting witches to death. Could that have been the universal Moral Law at work within those people? The reason we do not kill witches today is that we know that they do not have any power over us, making us kill each other and every other kind of abomination. If we did find irrefutable evidence to the contrary, then to impose the death penalty on these witches would certainly be just.

 

[Lucretius]

For those who ask 'if a society deemed it moral to kill everyone, would it be okay?' Let me respond with this:

Any societies that have found it prudent to kill one another do not last long. It's another example of selection: those who base morality around killing one another are not around to pass off these ideas.

Societies cannot exist with morals built around the destruction of society. The very fact that we have society tells us that rape and murder cannot be part of the human ethic for the majority of people.

 

[Vedant]

Morality is absolute and universally the same for every sane and capable human.

The difficulty is that people differ on definitions of what everyone considers to be right or wrong.

Murder is wrong. Every human sane and capable human believes this. However, what is defined as murder to one person may be defined as self-defense to another. What is controlling a woman's reproductive rights may be defined as killing an innocent person to another. Everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but everyone disagrees about what murder is defined to be.

The same goes for most every other "subjective morality".

 

[Cirbryn]

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?

If the time of day were subjective then anyone could believe it was any old time of day they wanted. No one would be able to coordinate meetings or schedules or business. Society would crumble. That's why I'm glad there is really only one objective system for telling time, which was laid down by God. (Although Satan is obviously to blame for leap years and for Arizona's refusal to accept daylight savings time.)

 

[Rosebaronet]

While morality can be subjective (To moral relativists and liberals) a set of consensus social codes is necessary for society to thrive, as we teach those codes (legal or religious) to our children, children internalise those codes and they became his/her subjective morality. This is why education is important to a society.

 

[quatona]

If morality is subjective...

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?

This subjectivist has never had the idea that anyone else „should care about“ my ideals anymore than they „should care“ about my taste in music.
If I cannot demonstrate the benefits of my ideals to a person and convince him of them, why the heck „should“ he adopt them? (I guess that´s what you actually mean here by „care for“ – correct me if I´m wrong).
In fact, I don´t even spend a thought on what someone else „should“.

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

Sure.
Now here´s the key question:
How would that be any different, even if we assume an objective moral to exist somewhere out there?[/quote]
Your subjective moral code will still be your subjective code, and claiming it to be objective won´t change anything about that. People do have done that and still do it all the time with all sorts of moral codes, and the only consequence is that people do not simply disagree in moral issues, but equally strongly disagree as to what the „objective moral code“ is.

The arguement underlying your question is not demonstrating that an objective moral code exists, but merely that it is desirable (because else everyone would stick to his own moral code).
In fact a world in which people believe in different moral codes to be objective doesn´t seem any more desirable (in the way your question implies) than a world in which people simply hold different subjective moral codes (I tend to think that the first even comes with several disadvantages, but that´s not really an important point in regards to the topic).

Thus, when you argumentate from desirability what you actually want is a moral code everyone agrees upon. This would solve the problem you want to get rid of, and for that it would be of no importance whether this agreed upon code is objective or not.

Unless a certain moral code can be convincingly demonstrated to everybody to be objective, it won´t help changing the (undesirable, in your argument) consequences of the fact that people have different subjective opinions as to what is objectively right/wrong and good/bad.

If I want to convince someone that hitting people on the head is not a good idea, I better have a set of good and convincing arguments why that is so – merely asserting that it is „objectively wrong“ won´t help me at all, I´m afraid.



The issue is not subjectivism, but subjectivity (in other words you are shooting the messenger). And I fail to see how being an objectivist solves this problem.

 

[quatona]

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.

The question in regards to the OP is more:
What´s got subjectivism to do with it?
It´s interesting that those people who have propagated systems and philosophies that accepted or were built on inflicting major harm on others were and are typically objectivists.
You are assuming there´s an objective moral code somewhere out there. Now, does it help preventing those things that violate this assumed "objective" moral code? Quite obviously not - people still do what they subjectively find moral or what they subjectively think the "objective moral code" says.
The way things are and all the "evil" you complain about exists with this "objective moral code" you believe in, the same way it exists without it.
So what again is the advantage of an "objective moral code" or of everyone being objectivists?

 

[Rosebaronet]

I think we should replace the word "objective" with the word "consensual" because a Christians agree morality pass down from Jesus Christ is the one to follow, therefore we reach a consensus that Bible should dictate our "subjective morality" which we will teach our children to become their "subjective morality." So while objective morality isn't something out there, (this is not Quantom physics) Consensus morality nonetheless exists.

 

[quatona]

I think we should replace the word "objective" with the word "consensual" because a Christians agree morality pass down from Jesus Christ is the one to follow, therefore we reach a consensus that Bible should dictate our "subjective morality" which we will teach our children to become their "subjective morality." So while objective morality isn't something out there, (this is not Quantom physics) Consensus morality nonetheless exists.

Except when there is no consensus.

 

[alerj123]

What one writer said years ago comes in well at this point. He said that over three-hundred years ago people were putting witches to death. Could that have been the universal Moral Law at work within those people? The reason we do not kill witches today is that we know that they do not have any power over us, making us kill each other and every other kind of abomination. If we did find irrefutable evidence to the contrary, then to impose the death penalty on these witches would certainly be just.

hmm, i fail to see how this has anything to do with what i said. While that may be a good reason why we don't kill witches today, it bears no relevence on either of my two examples.

 

[alerj123]

For those who ask 'if a society deemed it moral to kill everyone, would it be okay?' Let me respond with this:

Any societies that have found it prudent to kill one another do not last long. It's another example of selection: those who base morality around killing one another are not around to pass off these ideas.

Societies cannot exist with morals built around the destruction of society. The very fact that we have society tells us that rape and murder cannot be part of the human ethic for the majority of people.

How about if a society deemed it moral to kill everoneELSE. well, not so much everyone else as just the people in the way of whatever they want to do. Obviously if people advocate murder in their own society then its not going to work out well. But i cant even begin to count how many societies advocate measures such as imperialism to attain their goals. Some weren't very nice about it either.

 

[alerj123]

Morality is absolute and universally the same for every sane and capable human.

The difficulty is that people differ on definitions of what everyone considers to be right or wrong.

Murder is wrong. Every human sane and capable human believes this. However, what is defined as murder to one person may be defined as self-defense to another. What is controlling a woman's reproductive rights may be defined as killing an innocent person to another. Everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but everyone disagrees about what murder is defined to be.

The same goes for most every other "subjective morality".

This is kinda an interesting to say. Because what is the difference between "defining something differently" and it "just being different".

I define dinner as being the biggest meal of the day. That is simply how i have grown up. In other countries, however, while dinner is at the same time, lunch is usually the biggest meal of the day. Using my definition of the word, lunch should be their dinner. I think it would be fair to argue that my dinner and their dinner are different things. While it is equally fair to argue that the dinner's are the same thing, just differently defined.

The reason is that we are dealing with words, not real idea's. Yes, everyone agree's that murdering is bad, but not everyone agree's on its definition. That is competely equivalent to saying "yes, everone aggree's that murder is bad, but not everyone agree's on what IT MURDER IS". The definintion is what makes the word have meaning. If a word has a different definition, then it is, in effect, a different idea.

You can't say just because we all agree that this very vague word "murder" which has multiple meanings to multiple people and societies, then morality is objective.

 

[Lucretius]

How about if a society deemed it moral to kill everoneELSE. well, not so much everyone else as just the people in the way of whatever they want to do. Obviously if people advocate murder in their own society then its not going to work out well. But i cant even begin to count how many societies advocate measures such as imperialism to attain their goals. Some weren't very nice about it either.

Then the society will die anyway from isolation. No other society in their right mind would want to trade or have anything to do with such an insane group of people.

 

[Fledge]

This subjectivist has never had the idea that anyone else „should care about“ my ideals anymore than they „should care“ about my taste in music.
If I cannot demonstrate the benefits of my ideals to a person and convince him of them, why the heck „should“ he adopt them? (I guess that´s what you actually mean here by „care for“ – correct me if I´m wrong).
In fact, I don´t even spend a thought on what someone else „should“.

Pretty much. If you acknowledge that your moral code is simply your opinion on morality, then I have no reason to care what you have to say about morality...unless I think it is "right" to at least listen to what people have to say.

Sure.

Now here´s the key question:
How would that be any different, even if we assume an objective moral to exist somewhere out there?
Your subjective moral code will still be your subjective code, and claiming it to be objective won´t change anything about that. People do have done that and still do it all the time with all sorts of moral codes, and the only consequence is that people do not simply disagree in moral issues, but equally strongly disagree as to what the „objective moral code“ is.

It's true that people will disagree on what that objective code is, but even if there is no objective code (as I assume you believe), then people would disagree on what it is anyway (this world serving as an example...unless you're wrong, and there is such a code)

The arguement underlying your question is not demonstrating that an objective moral code exists, but merely that it is desirable (because else everyone would stick to his own moral code).
In fact a world in which people believe in different moral codes to be objective doesn´t seem any more desirable (in the way your question implies) than a world in which people simply hold different subjective moral codes (I tend to think that the first even comes with several disadvantages, but that´s not really an important point in regards to the topic).

Um, I'm not trying to argue for the idea of an objective moral code here. Like I said in the OP, I'm just curious as to what I can dig up. The reason why I asked "my fellow objectivists" to hold off was because I wanted to make sure my question got a fair hearing before being distorted by the debate I assumed would ensue. So far, there have been a number of very interesting posts on morality, whether it's subjective or objective, and what the goal of morality is, but I haven't really gotten any straightforward answer to my question. I'm not terribly surprised by that, but I wanted to give it a chance before it got snowed under.

Thus, when you argumentate from desirability what you actually want is a moral code everyone agrees upon. This would solve the problem you want to get rid of, and for that it would be of no importance whether this agreed upon code is objective or not.

The Sawi are an admittedly extreme example, but they certainly all agreed on it. And in answer to the objection raised by Lucretius, that society held together for multiple generations, dating back to nobody knows when. It was highly unstable to be sure, but it survived all the same.

Unless a certain moral code can be convincingly demonstrated to everybody to be objective, it won´t help changing the (undesirable, in your argument) consequences of the fact that people have different subjective opinions as to what is objectively right/wrong and good/bad.

If I want to convince someone that hitting people on the head is not a good idea, I better have a set of good and convincing arguments why that is so – merely asserting that it is „objectively wrong“ won´t help me at all, I´m afraid.

I'd have to be pretty asinine to assume that people will agree with me on something just because I tell them that it's a moral absolute, wouldn't I...

I do appreciate your pointing out that people would argue over whose moral code was the "true" objective code, but again, my OP wasn't about arguing a point (hopefully saying it twice in one post will save me from having to repeat it later).

The issue is not subjectivism, but subjectivity (in other words you are shooting the messenger). And I fail to see how being an objectivist solves this problem.

Not sure I quite get what you're saying here. Could you clarify?

 

[David Gould]

I want to live a happy life.

If others want to hurt me or kill me because they believe that is the right thing to do, it is in my interests to convince them otherwise.

As such, I care about other people's moral codes - I cannot help but care.

 

[quatona]

Pretty much. If you acknowledge that your moral code is simply your opinion on morality, then I have no reason to care what you have to say about morality...unless I think it is "right" to at least listen to what people have to say.

Yes, it´s obvious that I have no say in what you consider a reason to care what I have to say about morality.
(On a sidenote, you have been asking those very persons who you feel you have no reason to care what they have to say a question - and a moral one ("should") at that. Which indicates a certain interest in their opinion. How do I reconcile these your mixed messages? )

It's true that people will disagree on what that objective code is, but even if there is no objective code (as I assume you believe), then people would disagree on what it is anyway (this world serving as an example...unless you're wrong, and there is such a code)

No, my argument is not that no objective moral code exists, but that its existence or non-existence doesn´t make any practical difference.
In either case people will disagree, and even if assuming there to be an "objective moral code" their subjectivity determines what they accept as objective.

Um, I'm not trying to argue for the idea of an objective moral code here. Like I said in the OP, I'm just curious as to what I can dig up. The reason why I asked "my fellow objectivists" to hold off was because I wanted to make sure my question got a fair hearing before being distorted by the debate I assumed would ensue. So far, there have been a number of very interesting posts on morality, whether it's subjective or objective, and what the goal of morality is, but I haven't really gotten any straightforward answer to my question.

I think I have answered it straightforwardly more than once.

I'm not terribly surprised by that, but I wanted to give it a chance before it got snowed under.

Ok, here we go again:

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

I´m not in the position to tell anyone what they should care about. Thus, I can only give you my reason as to why I care about the subjective moral codes of other persons. In a nutshell: I want to get along with them. This, of course, is my personal, subjective desire, and I am not in the position to tell you what your desires "should" be, and what "should" be your method of acting as a consequence.
Is that a sufficiently straightforward answer? What remains unanswered?
(I hope you were not seriously expecting to get an answer claiming objectivity if asking a subjectivist. )

Beyond simply answering your question I tried to point out how the "If morality is subjective" is an irrelevant condition.
The question seems to work the same way like that:
"If morality is objective, why should anyone care about the moral code of an objectivist?"
"If morality is subjective, why should anyone care about the moral code of an objectivist?"
"If morality is objective, why should anyone care about the moral code of an subjectivist?"
"If morality is objective, why should anyone care about the moral code of anyone?"
"If morality is subjective, why should anyone care about the moral code of anyone?"
In other words, I try to point out how the question as you asked it obscures the problem at hand, rather than helping to nail it.
(Of course, since this point comes from a subjectivist, there is no reason for you to care about it. So I guess you better ignore my point )

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

Yes, it´s his personal moral code, after all.
The existence of an objective morality, however, wouldn´t change anything about the fact that a person´s subjective moral code is just a person´s subjective moral code and "restricted solely to that person", if that´s the conclusion you want to draw.

I'd have to be pretty asinine to assume that people will agree with me on something just because I tell them that it's a moral absolute, wouldn't I...

I wouldn´t call it "asinine" exactly, but I tend to think that every clear thinking person would reject the idea that calling one´s subjective ideas "objective" gives them any more weight.

I do appreciate your pointing out that people would argue over whose moral code was the "true" objective code, but again, my OP wasn't about arguing a point (hopefully saying it twice in one post will save me from having to repeat it later).

I hope that at least one of my repeated attempts of answering your question is to your satisfaction.

Not sure I quite get what you're saying here. Could you clarify?

Never mind.It´s not really a new or seperate point. It´s explained above.

 

[Fledge]

Yes, it´s obvious that I have no say in what you consider a reason to care what I have to say about morality.
(On a sidenote, you have been asking those very persons who you feel you have no reason to care what they have to say a question - and a moral one ("should") at that. Which indicates a certain interest in their opinion. How do I reconcile these your mixed messages? )

May I refer you to the tail end of an earlier post?

No, my argument is not that no objective moral code exists, but that its existence or non-existence doesn´t make any practical difference.
In either case people will disagree, and even if assuming there to be an "objective moral code" their subjectivity determines what they accept as objective.

True, there is little to no practical difference in terms of the debate, because, just as you say, people will have their own opinions as to what that objective moral code is.

Ok, here we go again:


I´m not in the position to tell anyone what they should care about. Thus, I can only give you my reason as to why I care about the subjective moral codes of other persons. In a nutshell: I want to get along with them. This, of course, is my personal, subjective desire, and I am not in the position to tell you what your desires "should" be, and what "should" be your method of acting as a consequence.
Is that a sufficiently straightforward answer? What remains unanswered?
(I hope you were not seriously expecting to get an answer claiming objectivity if asking a subjectivist. )

Your reasoning for why you would listen to me on the subject shows that you have an excellent reason to at least listen to me. Namely, you want to be able to get along. David Gould also provided an excellent reason why he would listen to me also. However, every answer to my OP has either sidestepped the question, or stated something along the lines of "I´m not in the position to tell anyone what they should care about." So I suppose that I have technically received several answers to my opening question, but quite frankly, I am somewhat surprised by them. (I probably should have caught and pointed out this distinction earlier. Sorry.) A full explanation as to why I find this odd would take considerably more time than I have now, and quite likely more than I will have at any point in the near future. If people are interested, I'd be happy to try and start a thread on the subject, but I don't know how soon I'd be able to articulate it, and get it all written up. PM me or post if you're interested. I think it might make a worthwhile thread, but it'd take time...

Beyond simply answering your question I tried to point out how the "If morality is subjective" is an irrelevant condition.
The question seems to work the same way like that:
"If morality is objective, why should anyone care about the moral code of an objectivist?"
"If morality is subjective, why should anyone care about the moral code of an objectivist?"
"If morality is objective, why should anyone care about the moral code of an subjectivist?"
"If morality is objective, why should anyone care about the moral code of anyone?"
"If morality is subjective, why should anyone care about the moral code of anyone?"
In other words, I try to point out how the question as you asked it obscures the problem at hand, rather than helping to nail it.
(Of course, since this point comes from a subjectivist, there is no reason for you to care about it. So I guess you better ignore my point )

I guess that I could probably have dropped the "if morality is subjective" bit, but the question really doesn't change much. Instead, it would be, "why should anyone care about the moral code of a subjectivist?"

Yes, it´s his personal moral code, after all.
The existence of an objective morality, however, wouldn´t change anything about the fact that a person´s subjective moral code is just a person´s subjective moral code and "restricted solely to that person", if that´s the conclusion you want to draw.

The biggest difference that I see between subjective and objective moral codes is that subjectivists get their moral code from a fairly wide array of sources, and their acceptance or rejection of an idea is usually based on what their reason says. As a result, a subjective moral code effectively flows from reason alone. Granted, the mind is introduced to different ideas by reading, experience, and other such things, but the mind is the ultimate judge as to what right and wrong are.

An objective code, OTOH, is usually drawn from a single source, usually the "Bible" of that person's religious group (i.e., the Torah, the Qu'ran, the Bible, etc.). As a result, the moral code of an objectivist typically results from whatever interpretive philosophy he uses in regards to his holy book. Literal interpretations provide one set of rules, highly figurative interpretations provide a very different set.

As a result, the debate of right and wrong is rather different between two objectivists than it is between two subjectivists. The objectivists will probably end up debating interpretive philosophies, and the subjectivists will end up debating something else, (not having any experience on the subject, I'm not going to go any further than that )

I hope that at least one of my repeated attempts of answering your question is to your satisfaction.

Never mind.It´s not really a new or seperate point. It´s explained above.

So you have, and yes it is. Thanks!

 

[quatona]

May I refer you to the tail end of an earlier post?

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?

Why would that follow? If the (subjective or supposedly objectve) moral code allows him to force others to follow his code, he will do it. The possibility exists.

True, there is little to no practical difference in terms of the debate, because, just as you say, people will have their own opinions as to what that objective moral code is.

Ok.

Your reasoning for why you would listen to me on the subject shows that you have an excellent reason to at least listen to me. Namely, you want to be able to get along. David Gould also provided an excellent reason why he would listen to me also. However, every answer to my OP has either sidestepped the question, or stated something along the lines of "I´m not in the position to tell anyone what they should care about."

I have given an answer to the same effect, and I think that was because the question as asked in the OP made me misunderstand the question, exactly because it
1. singled and emphasized out the subjectivism
2. asked "why should anyone...?" instead of asking "Why do (would) you...?", in which case I think I would have had no problem comprehending what sort of answer you were actually looking for.

So I suppose that I have technically received several answers to my opening question, but quite frankly, I am somewhat surprised by them. (I probably should have caught and pointed out this distinction earlier. Sorry.) A full explanation as to why I find this odd would take considerably more time than I have now, and quite likely more than I will have at any point in the near future. If people are interested, I'd be happy to try and start a thread on the subject, but I don't know how soon I'd be able to articulate it, and get it all written up. PM me or post if you're interested. I think it might make a worthwhile thread, but it'd take time...

Now that I have understood what you were asking for, there is not need for that, imo.

I guess that I could probably have dropped the "if morality is subjective" bit, but the question really doesn't change much. Instead, it would be, "why should anyone care about the moral code of a subjectivist?"

Sorry, but this doesn´t make it much better.
Why should anyone care about the moral code of an objectivist?
If I have understood your explanation above correctly (I´m now doubting this again) you intended to ask for my reason as to why I, a subjectivist, care for someone else´s ideas - as opposed to why I think someone else "should" care for mine or someone else´s. So why the heck don´t you ask it that way?
My reasons to care for the ideas of a subjectivist aren´t any different from my reasons to care for those of an objectivist. Did you expect there to be a difference? This would explain the qualifier "of a subjectivist".

The biggest difference that I see between subjective and objective moral codes is that subjectivists get their moral code from a fairly wide array of sources, and their acceptance or rejection of an idea is usually based on what their reason says. As a result, a subjective moral code effectively flows from reason alone. Granted, the mind is introduced to different ideas by reading, experience, and other such things, but the mind is the ultimate judge as to what right and wrong are.

An objective code, OTOH, is usually drawn from a single source, usually the "Bible" of that person's religious group (i.e., the Torah, the Qu'ran, the Bible, etc.). As a result, the moral code of an objectivist typically results from whatever interpretive philosophy he uses in regards to his holy book. Literal interpretations provide one set of rules, highly figurative interpretations provide a very different set.

As a result, the debate of right and wrong is rather different between two objectivists than it is between two subjectivists. The objectivists will probably end up debating interpretive philosophies, and the subjectivists will end up debating something else, (not having any experience on the subject, I'm not going to go any further than that )

I have always wondered how objectivists discuss their controversial moral codes? I have never seen that happening, other than endlessly repeating throwing unsubstantiated truth claims at each other (and the subjectivists along with it). Interpretative debates are possible as long as both refer to the same literal (or whatever source). Whilst a Muslim will be unimpressed by bible-quotes or certain interpretations of them, simply because it is not his authoritative source. And vice versa.
I think Holy War and variations on it is one of the common methods.

 

[elman]

The question in regards to the OP is more:
What´s got subjectivism to do with it?
It´s interesting that those people who have propagated systems and philosophies that accepted or were built on inflicting major harm on others were and are typically objectivists.
You are assuming there´s an objective moral code somewhere out there. Now, does it help preventing those things that violate this assumed "objective" moral code? Quite obviously not - people still do what they subjectively find moral or what they subjectively think the "objective moral code" says.
The way things are and all the "evil" you complain about exists with this "objective moral code" you believe in, the same way it exists without it.
So what again is the advantage of an "objective moral code" or of everyone being objectivists?

As I understand your argument, there must not be any evil because some people chose to be evil. why would people chosing to torture babies prove there was no objective understanding that was the wrong thing to do? Why would you assume the objective moral code did not help prevent immoral actions and base that assumption on someone being immoral in spite of the moral code against it? How does evil exists without a moral code as you claim?

 

[quatona]

As I understand your argument, there must not be any evil because some people chose to be evil.

Then I must have been misunderstandably. Since I have no idea what part of my post you derive this idea from, I don´t even see a chance of clarifying, for the time being.

why would people chosing to torture babies prove there was no objective understanding that was the wrong thing to do?

I don´t know. Please discuss it with someone who claims such.

Why would you assume the objective moral code did not help prevent immoral actions and base that assumption on someone being immoral in spite of the moral code against it? How does evil exists without a moral code as you claim?

I am entirely confused, to be honest. I don´t recognize anything I have said in your paraphrasings.
I do not claim that evil exists. I claim that the world is like it is. If someone detects "evil" in this world and at the same time believes that there exists an objective moral code, I conclude that the existence of this objective moral code doesn´t help preventing this "evil".