meritocrat

As a layman in philosophy, I don't see how the two notions (, i.e. subjective morality and harm to others) can be linked or are compatible.

If morality is totally subject to one's personal feeling, then you should accept that people would possess the ability or the 'right' to form and execute moral codes that could harm others. Am I wrong in believing this?

If I stated that all should be entitled to various opinions, yet then say that bigoted opinions are not welcome, few would see such a position as logical. In my mind, the relationship between subjective morality and harm to others equates with my example.

Darth Dane

As a layman in philosophy, I don't see how the two notions (, i.e. subjective morality and harm to others) can be linked or are compatible.

Yes, from a certain POV.

If morality is totally subject to one's personal feeling, then you should accept that people would possess the ability or the 'right' to form and execute moral codes that could harm others. Am I wrong in believing this?

No you aren't as I see it. The belief system of any human is "Holy", including those who condone violence...as sad as that may be. I accept some are very egoistic, will resort to violence and so on, I don't condone violence but I condone expressing of freewill. Why some choose violence over peace, sadness over happiness, hate over Love, I will not fathom in a sense. But Love gives freewill, and Love for me is the answer

If I stated that all should be entitled to various opinions, yet then say that bigoted opinions are not welcome, few would see such a position as logical. In my mind, the relationship between subjective morality and harm to others equates with my example.

Yes, double standards eh?

Paradoxical human behaviour.



DD - Love Spliff

Paperstreet

Humans are very much different, so of course subjective morality has flaws. Do what is unselfish, and best for other people, that will be the right way to go.l

NearNihil Experience

As Nietzsche says,
“- we believe that severity, violence, slavery, danger in the street and in the heart, secrecy, stoicism, tempter’s art and delivery of every kind,- that everything wicked, terrible, tyrannical, predatory and serpentine in man, serves as well for the elevation of the human species as its opposites.” -Beyond Good and Evil

I agree with this, but only in the sense of something else the man wrote,

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into the abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.”- the Gay Science


These seemed to relate to the topic, a little. and they are among my favorite Nietzsche quotes.

DRFseven

Have you also noticed how objective morality and harm to others is linked?

meritocrat

I'm not arguing in favour of absolute morality.

I want somebody to prove how subjective morality can be disassociated with harm to others.

And yes, an absolute morality can be linked with harm to others But that's not my point. Did my question knock your faith in subjective morality or something? Why so defensive?

Philosoft

How about this: Subjective morality does not necessarily entail harm to others. QED.

Surely you're not looking for some kind of universal statement or argument?

DRFseven

In practice, no system of morality can do that.

If your point is not to single out subjective morality as capable of harming others, then what IS your point? From your question, it appeared as if you thought a subjective viewpoint, as opposed to an objective viewpoint, CAUSED harm to others. I was not being defensive, I was being dialectical.

Alonzo Fyfe

What is this thing that you call 'subjective morality' that you are wondering can be associated with 'harm to others'?

If by 'subjective morality' you mean 'whatever set of principles or rules one happens to accept, no matter what they are,' then clearly that there is no way to link this necessarily with 'harm to others'.

Yet, linking such a view with the social institution and practices commonly referred to 'morality' is like linking the notion of 'associating such a view with what is commonly practiced as 'morality' is about as absurd as linking the idea of 'a line consisting of points all equally distant from another point not on the line' with a 'square'.

In other words, if you entered a standard debate and started talking gleefully about torturing people for the pure enjoyment of it, people will look at you the way they would look at somebody who started talking about a 'square circle.'

Part of what motivates some people to accept this sense of 'subjective morality' is the fact that different people have different views, and there seems no way to resolve the differences between them.

This, however, can be easily attributed to two mistakes.

The first mistake is a traditional practice of treating moral values as objective intrinsic properties. Intrinsic values do not exist; values depend on psychological states. This makes values 'subjective'. So far so good -- the original mistake of intrinsic prescriptivity is corrected.

But, the subjectivist then makes a second mistake and makes moral properties dependent on the psychological states of the person making the moral claim. What is the justification for this?

The subjectivist, in this sense, is guilty of over-correcting. Recognizing that all value depends on desire, and there is no 'intrinsic prescriptivity', the subjectivist goes on from this to draw conclusions far beyond those that the recognition that values need a valuer allows.

In asking the question 'whose desires', the defender of subjective morality asserts, 'the values of the person making the claim' without any evidence or even an argument in its defense. Yet, this requires a leap that logic alone cannot cross. There are certainly more desires in existence in the world than those of the speaker. Why take moral terms as referring to the speaker's desires alone and ignore all of the other desires that exist?

Another possible answer is 'relative to the desires of people generally', and any who want to defend 'relative to the desires of the person making the claim' has to say something to defend this interpretation as being better than all other alternatives. No defense is offered, and I would argue that none can be provided. Moral claims -- interpreted as claims about nothing more than what is of value to the speaker -- makes no sense of the claims people actually make.

It appears to be the case that the defender of 'subjective morality' makes there mistake by noting that anybody who makes a moral claim is reporting what they believe. And these beliefs are subjective.

However, the same thing is true of a person making a scientific or mathematic claim. They are also reporting what they believe. Yet, few people would dare assert that since every scientific assertion is based on the beliefs of the person making it, that all of science is subjective -- that all scientific claims are nothing more than assertions of the beliefs of the person making the scientific claim.

They would be even less inclined to assert such an argument about mathematical claims.

There is simply no justification for the assertion that defenders of 'subjective morality' make from 'there is no intrinsic prescriptivity' to 'moral claims are nothing more than assertions of the principles of the speaker.'

Moral claims are, in fact, significantly more than assertions about how the object of evaluation impacts the values of the person making the claim. They are assertions about whether the principles behind the action, law, or institution generate harm for others.

In other words 'harm to others' is as integrated into the concept of 'immoral' as strongly as 'unmarried' is linked to the concept of 'bachelor.' It is the only interpetation that actually makes sense of the claims people make, when they make what they call 'moral claims'.

The AntiChris

Well they certainly posess the "ability", although I've no idea how you think this has anything to do with whether morality is objective or subjective.

Whether you, personally, believe they have the "right" will depend on your particular moral "standards" and has nothing to do with whether morality is objective or subjective.

Chris