And I have been as clear as I can possibly be that such determinations can be made subjectively, just like how people decide whether Star Trek or Star Wars is better subjectively.
This seems to be at the crux of our debate where we are getting stuck on translating subjective thinking into moral thinking. They are different types of thinking. Subjective thinking is descriptive. It describes the subjects state such as the prefer Star Trek. Whereas morality is prescriptive so it attributes “oughts” and “should” which we cannot apply to subjective states i.e. We cannot say or apply that “we ought not to prefer Star Trek” or that “we should not prefer Star Trek as its wrong”. Doesn’t work.
Again, I have responded to this countless times. First of all, people acting like morality is objective doesn't make it objective, and secondly, I also say sunrise and sunset, that doesn't mean that I actually think the sun is moving and the Earth isn't.
It doesnt mean the sun rotates around the earth because we know objectively that it doesn't.
But when it comes to morality because it’s prescriptive when you “rape is wrong” you are making an objective and normative claim that something is either right or wrong which we know is like a natural law just like we know the laws of physics and the relationship of the earth to the sun.
Under subjective thinking there is no right and wrong. It doesn’t matter how many examples you give me it doesn’t translate into morality because it’s descriptive. Like the earth orbiting the sun is a description of what is happening and not prescriptive about how we ought to act morally. That is why I keep questioning what you mean because the examples you give are not how morality works.
Because they are basing their decision on their own experience and their own values. Different people have different values, after all.
Ok so if “Different people have different values” how do we determine the right value to apply to a situation. How do we find out which is the best way to behave in any moral situation.
It can't be just the person with the most elegant debating style or personal opinion as some opinions may have more to offer or be reasoned better than others.
Of course, I find it hard to believe that you do not understand how people can reach decisions subjectively. Most people make such decisions every day. Don't you?
I think I understand that people have feelings, views about the world and can come to their own worldview. But this is tainted with personal experience which can skew their view of things. So its not a reliable base to make such important judgements as moral situations require. We would want to be able to reason the best or at least better option as it concerns peoples lives and wellbeing.
You say you are just responding to what I have said, yet it appears to me that you have completely ignored me when I have stated repeatedly that I believe that morality is subjective.
I don’t doubt “you believe” that morality is subjective. But believing is one thing and how we act or converse in real life situations is another. I think this is the heart of the issue as I have been saying that people cannot help but make morality objective. The way we act and converse has implications for reality when it comes to moral issues.
When you say things like TV shows are equivalent to moral values it doesn’t make sense so I try to show you why. When you say people claim something is morally wrong it implies an objective determination. It’s either right or wrong so I try to point this out and how it doesnt translate to poreferences ie 'its not wrong to dislike Star Trek'.
When you say people disagree over moral values it implies someone is right and someone is wrong which needs to be determined by some independent measure. When you say people reason about moral issues it implies there needs to be some objective basis to determine which moral values are the right ones. So I keep clarifying what you mean because what you keep implying in using this language is that there are objective morals.
1) Different views are not equal in the view of any one particular person. I, for example hold the opinion that Star Trek is better than Star Wars. There are plenty of people who hold the opposite view, and yet their opinions are not equal to mine FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
it’s interesting that you emphasize
“FROM MY PERSPECTIVE” as this is what I have been saying all along. That subjective preferences and feelings are only about the subject perspective and are not “Truths” outside the subject for others like morality is.
So Apart from
YOUR PERSPECTIVE do people’s preferences for TV shows have equal status in the world. If a person holds the opposite view that Star Wars is better than Star Trek is their view any less of value outside the subjects thinking in the world.
And by that, I mean that I'm not going to act as though I love Star Wars and hate Star Trek just because someone else holds that view. I'm going to live my life based on my own view, in just the same way that I'm going to live my life by the moral standards that I have found are best for me.
But here is where the subjective system falls down. You say
“I'm not going to act as though I love Star Wars and hate Star Trek just because someone else holds that view” But we do act like we hate immoral behaviour. We do march in the streets and protest to our leaders over moral issues, we do sack people for immoral behaviour. See how preferences for TV shows don’t translate.
When you say
“I'm going to live my life by the moral standards that I have found are best for me”.
So let’s apply this subjective thinking to morality. Can the person with the opposite view to you
“live their life by the moral standards that they have found are best for them”.
2)My answer above applies here as well. People base their decision on their own experience and their own values. Different people have different values, after all.
So if 2 people were arguing about a moral issue and they both express their views how do we determine which view is the right moral behaviour. Surely if they are only expressing personal opinions we cannot base important matters on this. People’s opinions and views are skewed by their personal experience so they will be an unreliable and even dangerous way to determine what is the right behaviour for moral issues.
3) I've already answered this. I would not be able to answer this unless I had actually been in a situation where I actually had to do it. Logically, I would say that the older person is the more logical choice based on the fact that they have already lived more of their life, and yet if the older person was my husband, I don't think I could choose to not save him. And yet if the younger person were my daughter, well, you get the idea.
OK this is what I have been trying to point out that we cannot help but make morality objective. Everything you spoke about in how to determine which person to kill implies an objective basis to measure things. For example you said
"you have to be in the situation to know what to do". Why would you need to be in the situation unless you needed to know the circumstances and how this impacts on your judgement? But in doing that reasonong why one determination is better than the other can only make sense if there is an object basis to reason against.
Secondly when you say
“I would say that the older person is the more logical choice based on the fact that they have already lived more of their life” you are acknowledging that you need an objective base to reason and use logic against to find the facts.
I understand people have personal feelings for others but in your moral situation where we have no alternative but to kill the old person or the young person it’s obvious that this is a matter beyond personal feelings or preferences. So as you said reasoning and logic can be used to determine what the best way to go is. This needs an objective measure outside subjective feelings and preferences.[/quote]
