Think about a football game. Now obviously, football games have certain rules, and set starting and ending points. But suppose you took away the ending point, and made it so that the game would last for an infinite period of time. All of a sudden, there's no point in keeping score, and there's no such thing as winners and losers, because there's never any reckoning of any point. The stated goal of the game, to score more points than the other team, has just been rendered null and void.
Good example.
I may be mistaken about how game rules come into existence, but in my naivity I think it happens in a conference of persons who have subjective opinions as to what would make that game attractive, and they exchange those subjective opinions and try to come to an agreement. In order to come to an agreement, they would have to listen to each other. And there it is, the reason: Else there wouldn´t be any agreed upon rules to play by, to begin with.
Because persons who want to play a game usually see the benefits that come from having rules in games (I mean – by what would a game be defined if not its rules?) they accept those rules, and don´t have any problems with the fact that they are not at all objective, but completely subjective, even by and large arbitrarily set up.
As opposed to games – in which the players usually accept the rules instead of discussing them - , life is not something we have decided to play after being informed about the arbitrarily set up rules, and one might also argue that we haven´t yet established that life is about winning and losing. With a game, if you don´t like the rules, you can simply play a different game or none at all.
I am inclined to think that that´s the reason why – when it comes to life - we find ourselves being both the players and the ones discussing the rules.
With morality, either there is a reckoning at some point, or there is not. If there is never any form of reckoning, than we can do anything we want, because we will never be called to account for anything. If there is some form of reckoning, then there must be some standard for us to be judged on.
(For the record: I don´t see how this is necessary. If you touch a hot plate, you will burn your fingers. No reckoning, no judging, no punishment - just the consequences. If morality is a law in the same way gravity is - as I understand you argumenting further down -, this would be all there is to it, and it would be effective. But for the time being I will accept your axiom that there needs to be some sort of reckoning, for the sake of the argument.)
I get the impression that you make more of the concept „subjectivism“ than there actually is to it. Subjectivism is not anarchism. Subjectivism does not postulate that there may not be any rules. Subjectivism does not postulate that existing rules are to be broken. Subjectivism does not postulate that there may not be reckoning.
Subjectivism merely acknowledges that, like in the football example, rules are not existing „objectively“ somewhere out there (and merely have to be sort of found or detected), but are necessarily the product of agreement between persons (in which „agreement“ can also mean „by arbitrary decree of the most powerful, with the powerless – due to their lack of power - having to accept them“
, none of which can claim to be in hold of the objectively right/good solution.
I fell out of a tree once, and so I can confidently tell you that falling is perfectly painless. The kicker is when you hit the ground at the bottom. The consequences of attempting to violate the law of gravity would be nonexistent if we never landed, and gravity would be a largely meaningless law.
Yet, it is no prescriptive. We cannot conclude that falling of a tree is „wrong“. We can conclude that falling of a tree is not a good idea,
in case you don´t want to get hurt.
Unlike with the undesirability of the consequences of falling off a tree, people often disagree in what of the consequences of a certain behaviour is desirable. They don´t deny the consequences themselves.
The point: The law of gravity
cannot be violated (that´s the very nature of a descriptive rule), whilst moral laws can (and that´s the very nature of prescriptive rules).
And in case you're wondering, it's not "[my] idea that people only can be kept in line if punishment is threatened to be inflicted on them". It's a fact of life that actions have consequences. If you pull a trigger, a bullet is sent out of the barrel of the gun. If you jump out of a window, you fall and hit the ground. If you are constantly seeking to serve others, you will (probably) be loved. Consequences are either good or bad, but the idea of an action having no effect is supported nowhere in the natural world, and I for one fail to see where you have come up with it. As any physicist can tell you, the simple act of observation can completely change the object being observed. Actions have consequences. (And for the record, it is at least theoretically possible to keep people in line without any need for punishment or its threat.)
Ok, sorry for misunderstanding the punishment part.
However, we are back at the problem that you make „subjectivism“ something it isn´t. Subjectivism doesn´t deny actions to have consequences. Subjectivism merely acknowledges that different people value those consequences differently.
Sure, there are instances in which people even disagree on what the consequences of an action are (btw. something that objectivists and subjectivists have in common). That makes this problem subjective on just another level.
Add to that the problem that our world is not monocausal. One event cannot be traced down to be the effect of one single event as a „cause“, and any event/action has a multitude of effects. So other points in which people often disagree are:
-which of those multiple consequences they emphasize,
-at which point in time they look at the result,
-which of the multiple causes they regard most relevant
etc.
A fact that subjectivists acknowledge. They also acknowledge that any opinion we hold or hear is subjective. They do not necessarily desire this fact, they just
acknowledge it and its consequences (!).
Shooting someone is likely gonna kill him. This consequence is acknowledged by objectivists and subjectivists alike. Just like with gravity we can derive conditional prescriptive rules from this: „
In case you don´t accept killing others as an acceptable means of human interaction, it´s a not a good idea to shoot at them.“ But this is not a normative statement, it´s just a conditional (i.e. already presupposing a certain normative axiom to be accepted) prescriptive rule derived from the acknowledged consequences, similar to the conditional prescriptive rule derived from gravity: „
If you don´t want to get hurt, make sure you don´t fall of a tree.“
A normative rule (i.e. the prescriptive rule itself) would be something like „It´s evil to fall off trees“, „It´s evil to kill humans.“ This has nothing to do with acknowledging the consequences, it has to do with valuating them, in both cases.
Another point: In view of the fact that all opinions are subjective and (if an objective morality would exist somewhere out there) a subjective opinion might be coincidentally congruent with this assumed objective morality, I fail to see how an objectivist would disgregard the possibility that a subjectivist´s opinion might be congruent with this OM, even if the person holding it doesn´t claim it to be objective.
For example, I personally and subjectively think that killing other humans (and other sentient beings) is
never ever a good idea. This my stance is either congruent with an hypothetically assumed OM or it isn´t. Whether I sell it as subjective or objective wouldn´t change anything about this congruence/non-congruence.
Likewise, after discussing this my opinion with me, it will either be plausible and reasonable to you or it won´t. I don´t see how its plausibility to you would in any way depend on whether I present it as subjective or objective. In any case, you would first have to pay attention in order to even only take notice of it and consider its plausibility.
No, I have simply tried to explain, and you have pretty consistently failed to understand.
That´s regrettable, and there are several reasons thinkeable for „failing communication“ (which would be the wording of
my (subjective
) choice, because it is neutral and doesn´t try to put the blame or fault on one of the participants). E.g.. another wording for your above sentence would be: „You (quatona) have simply tried to understand, and I (Fledge) have pretty consistently failed to explain.“
Further possiblities: You (Fledge) have explained your idea greatly, and I have understood what you were trying to say perfectly, and still we disagree. Either because your ideas are logically inconsistent/pointless, or because mine are (or both), or simply because we are working from different axioms. Or one of us (or both) is/are applying an unusual terminology. Or....
Whatever, when two people miscommunicate, it´s safe to say that it is likely to frustrate both of them alike, and that accomplishing a clarification asks patience from both of them alike.
Once it gets to the point where I feel like it's a complete waste of my time to respond, then I'll stop doing so.
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. (I am aware that my opinion counts zero for you because I don´t claim it to be objective, but, well, I´m just doing my part of the conversation).
Given the consistency with which we've managed to fail to understand each other, that point is probably going to be coming up very soon. I hope that it doesn't, but it's not a possibility that can be discounted.
I can empathize with your frustration.
Yes, there are moments in which we feel helpless to an extent that makes continuing what we are trying to do appear to be pointless, and in which we can´t think of a new and different approach. As soon as that´s the case with you, that will be entirely your decision, which I will have to and will respect, but I don´t see how I am the one who could possibly do anything about these your feelings and emotions.
Likewise, I, too, might at one point of time be frustrated to a degree that makes me unwilling to continue the discussion.
These are valid option to the both of us, and in my (unfortunately merely subjective, therefore completely neglectible
) opinion I used to feel they even went without mentioning.
Since you are frustrated with me misunderstanding you, please allow me this suggestion: Give me some of your reasons why anyone "should" listen to/pay attention to/care about the moral code of anyone at all. This might help me to get an idea
1. what sort of answer you are looking for and what criteria you are applying when it comes to deciding whether to care or not to care about people´s moral codes,
2. why you think there is no reason to care about the moral code of subjectivists, as opposed to those of objectivists.
Greetings
quatona
