Vote
39 Total Votes
1

Subjective

29 votes
5 comments
2

Objective

10 votes
3 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
ladiesman says2018-06-03T17:38:38.0790662Z
Objectivists say moral judgments are statements about a dimension of objective reality and subjectivists argue moral statements are expressions of personal feelings and choice. Morality is somewhere in between mathematically certain truths and arbritrary feelings.
ladiesman says2018-06-03T18:16:11.0279420Z
A problem with moral subjectivism is if morality is nothing more than subjective feelings and preferences, then there would be no reason to take morality seriously. We don't argue about what is subjective such as tastes in food and sports. We may communicate our feelings about them, but we don't argue. Subjectivist theories such as David Hume's emotivism and A.J. Ayer's verification principle do not explain the empirical data; people do have meaningful discussions/arguments about right and wrong.
KristoMF says2018-06-03T19:10:32.5199420Z
I would say food manufacturers surely consider subjective tastes a serious issue. Similarly, even if morality is subjective, the interactions between us are important for living in society.
ladiesman says2018-06-03T19:26:11.2655420Z
@KristoMF Interesting what you said about objective ways of acting with subjective standards.
KristoMF says2018-06-03T20:55:56.4081761Z
@ladiesman thanks :) I regard it more or less like health. Sure, a flu is objectively bad for your health, as going out on a killing spree is objectively immoral; but health is subject to the person, as morality is subject to society, or to the definition that society has given it.
ladiesman says2018-06-03T21:51:04.7435456Z
@KristoMF What would be another example?
douloi_esmen_anprim says2018-06-03T21:55:32.1426662Z
No god; no meaning. Also, non-deterministic universe, therefore we cannot predict (with certainty) consequences of our actions, therefore morality is based on the subjective intention.
ladiesman says2018-06-03T22:34:49.4742662Z
@KristoMF Going on a killing spree is objectively immoral, so where do standards being subjectively defined fit in?
KristoMF says2018-06-04T08:07:58.5290513Z
@ladiesman The killing spree is objectively immoral because it conflicts with morality IF it is defined something along the lines of "living in harmony regarding the wellbeing of society". Of course, although we all normally happen to agree on that, more or less, that definition is nonetheless subjective.
Mister_Man says2018-06-06T02:30:30.4513478Z
@Ladiesman - Morality is nothing more than people's feelings toward something. If one person thinks going on a killing spree is a good thing, it ends up not being objectively bad.
KristoMF says2018-06-06T15:13:15.8679753Z
Good point, @Mister_Man. The problem is, couldn't we say that (the killing spree) is objectively bad for the people that loved and cared for the victims, due to the psychological harm? Or that those acts would be objectively bad for a society in which they are freely permitted?
Mister_Man says2018-06-06T18:38:02.3166370Z
@Kristo - We could, however "good" and "bad" are still subjective opinions or feelings, which can of course be backed with facts and reasoning, but for something to be objective, it can't be a feeling or opinion, as it differs for everybody. The definition of Objectivity basically says that it's independent of perceptions, meaning feelings and opinions don't apply, even if they are universally the same. If 50 people feel bad about someone they know being killed, it isn't objectively bad, it's just that those 50 people feel bad about it. I hope that made sense, I'm very tired right now lol
KristoMF says2018-06-07T09:19:50.0241452Z
@Mister_Man - It made perfect sense. I agree there is no Objective "good" and "bad" out there, independent and absolute. I was trying to point out the fact that, with a goal or standard against which to value them, "good" and "bad" can used to judge objectively. I also partially agree with your emotivist approach; when someone judges something as good or bad, I think they are usually just saying they are in favour or against.
KristoMF says2018-06-07T09:20:36.3873452Z
@Mister_Man - It made perfect sense. I agree there is no Objective "good" and "bad" out there, independent and absolute. I was trying to point out the fact that, with a goal or standard against which to value them, "good" and "bad" can used to judge objectively. I also partially agree with your emotivist approach; when someone judges something as good or bad, I think they are usually just saying they are in favour or against.
ladiesman says2018-06-07T20:55:03.4445497Z
@KristoMF Emotivism appears to be true when we look at certain topics such as premarital sex; some say its wrong and others do not. But if you were to ask a subjectivist about whether it's morally right to burn down the rainforest or rape they would'nt say then that morality is subjective. It seems that nobody is a pure subjectivist, only relative subjectivists.
Mister_Man says2018-06-07T22:32:54.9881497Z
@Kristo - Fair enough, I can mostly agree with that haha. @Ladiesman - Nope, I would say those things are still subjectively bad, but I can give a plethora of reasons to back my stance up and don't know a single reason why it could be good. I still think having 0 reason to believe something is good doesn't make it objectively bad, as that's my opinion and feelings toward the matter. I'm sure the rapist or the people burning down rainforests to build whatever could defend their stance somehow as well.
ladiesman says2018-06-07T22:58:55.4873497Z
@Mister_Man The rapist and people who burn down the rainforest, commit genocide, etc. can rationalize or justify their actions as easily as anybody else. People have an almost magical ability to rationalize and justify any behavior. But the observers and victims morally condemn the perpetrators. I believe in moral contextualism; acts such as killing another human, theft and lying are wrong in one context but not in another. The rightness or wrongness of rape does not depend on the context.
Mister_Man says2018-06-08T03:31:58.7301992Z
@Ladiesman - That's true and I agree, however when we're talking objectivity and subjectivity, feelings and opinions shouldn't come into play, so "good" and "bad" being feelings can't be objective. We can back our stance up as much as possible, with all the facts and information and reasoning, but it's still defending our opinion. Same applies to right and wrong. A rapist is objectively detrimental to society, but to attribute human emotions or concepts to objectivity doesn't work in my mind.
sometimes_smart says2018-10-11T02:43:22.2450805Z
It seems to me that the main problem for subjectivists, Is that they are forced to reject the idea of "evil" existing. Morality becomes defined by mere personal taste, Where no preference is more right than another. As a result, There is nothing truly wrong with spit-roasting an infant, As the "evilness" ascribed to such an act depends on a single person's interpretation. This interpretation may vary among individuals, And moral condemnation becomes absurd. Obviously, Subjective moral codes are usually defined by entire cultures; however, If a culture claims that an action is cruel, There is an assumption that it is cruel in an objective sense. If this assumption is not there, Then the culture becomes the cruel one, As they condemn someone’s actions while at the same time affirming that morality is subjective. Societies without moral codes or laws will perish; and, To put in place a moral law when at the same time affirming a subjective view, Is absurd and hypocritical. Indeed, It is hard to see how a society which affirms a subjective view of morality could function, And the subjectivist is forced to borrow from the objectivists.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.