luvluv

Do Subjectivists suscribe to the theory (at 25% off the newstand price... sorry, it's late) because it entails a significant moral advance, or simply because they disbelieve in a central authority?

Christianity advanced the principles of non-violence, forgiveness, and the establishment of a relationship with God through faith instead of through adherance to religious rituals. It also advanced the theory of solidarity in Matthew 25, and the Christian ethic of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", a significant advance on the Buddhist or Confucists "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you".


So, my question is... is there a similar moral advance in subjectivism? Or do you simply subscribe to subjectivism (and get your free subjectivism pull-over and football phone) because of the lack of central authority?

If there was a central authority, or if one could be agreed upon by(but not forced upon) the masses, wouldn't this be more effective than subjectivism?

Thanks and sorry for the silliness.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

luvluv

Well, objectivism appears to be unsupported. Truth has a positive ethical value of its own.

You are cherry picking. Christianity also advanced the principles of mass slaughter, genocide, torture of heretics, slavery, and even to this day retards the progress of science and advocates the denial of civil rights to people because of their sexual practices.

After having been around for a couple of millennia, it would be unsurprising if some christians did not have some good ideas.

But it is also true that secularists have some good ideas as well.

History is a bad way to establish objective truth (except, of course, about history itself). None of the good ideas you mention above requires a belief in a god to valid, interesting ideas.

It appears that it is truthful that there is no central divine authority.

If there were a central divine authority, it is necessary to prove its existence.

And, given human history, it does not appear that it is possible for one particular authority to be agreed upon, even with the the use of force.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Pomp

luvluv,

Do Subjectivists suscribe to the theory (at 25% off the newstand price... sorry, it's late) because it entails a significant moral advance, or simply because they disbelieve in a central authority?

This particular subjectivist subscribes to subjectivism because, unlike moral objectivism, it has no unfounded assumptions. In short, it is trivial to prove all the axioms of subjectivist stance, while it is, as far as I have seen, impossible to prove the axioms of an objectivist stance. Subjectivism, for me, has the advantage of being demonstrably true.

So, my question is... is there a similar moral advance in subjectivism? Or do you simply subscribe to subjectivism (and get your free subjectivism pull-over and football phone) because of the lack of central authority?

This question assumes that there is some objective standard by which to measure moral advances. It makes no sense from a subjectivist standpoint.

If there was a central authority, or if one could be agreed upon by(but not forced upon) the masses, wouldn't this be more effective than subjectivism?

In short, you're asking if it would not be better if everyone agreed to one standard. Sure, it would. Just get everyone to agree, and then get back to us.

echidna

Luvluv, I think you should have left out this paragraph, because now your thread is likely to descend into yet anther attack on your Xianity, instead of actually answering your question, but anyway …

For something different, I’ll reply from a theistic perspective. To me, all of our worldly religions are eminently human creations, attempting in their own ways to draw people closer to God. And being human, each has taken the important central message and largely subverted it for a plethora of human reasons.

Now in my quest to be closer to God, why should I be moral ?

Should I act morally so I can get into Heaven or to avoid going to Hell ? The morality of Pavlov’s Dog appears to be no morality at all.

Should I act morally because God tells me to be moral ? Again, the morality of blind obedience appears to be no morality at all.

Should I act morally because I feel it is the right thing to do ? I think so. To me this is the most reliable way I have of trying to be closer to God.

My big question :
Is it Right because God says so ? Or does God say so because it’s Right ?
(So is the God part important at all ?)

Yes, I think denial of another person’s moral objectivism is a significant moral advance. Whether or not there is a common thread of moral objectivism which is innate to us all, is another matter altogether, but when it comes to any religion, it comes down to believing another person’s interpretation of God. And when it comes to issues of morality, I think I’d rather believe myself about what is Good and Bad. And if we agree, well so much the better.

Alonzo Fyfe

You pose a false dilemma.

Subjectivism poses a significant moral advance BECAUSE it recognizes the fact that there is no central authority.

All moral claims grounded on the assumption of a central authority are false.

An important step toward making true moral claims is to recognize the existence of false claims, and the reason that they are false.


(Be that as it may, subjectivists then make a mistake of their own by stopping with this one step. This leaves them with an inherently contradictory position -- whereas morality is basically interpersonal, subjectivism allows a person to do whatever they like without consideration of its interpersonal effects unless they like the idea of considering interpersonal effects.

They also confuse 'is' and 'ought' by making a direct line between 'X is something that I think of as being wrong' to 'X is something that I ought to think of as being wrong.'

One is, I believe, quite justified in that the simple subjectivist morality that most subjectivists advocate is really no morality at all -- but a license to do whatever pleases the agent.)

Jayhawker Soule

Even leaving aside the blood-letting that has too often accompanied Christianity, it would be the height of presumption to suggest the the 'Golden Rule' as a 'Christian ethic', e.g.,:

• You shall love your neighbor as yourself. - Judaism. Bible, Leviticus 19.18
• A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. - Jainism. Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
• Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence. - Confucianism. Mencius VII.A.4

Futhermore, I challenge you to show that Matthew represents "a significant advance" over Hillel.

Pomp

Alonzo Fyfe,

(Be that as it may, subjectivists then make a mistake of their own by stopping with this one step. This leaves them with an inherently contradictory position -- whereas morality is basically interpersonal, subjectivism allows a person to do whatever they like without consideration of its interpersonal effects unless they like the idea of considering interpersonal effects.

This is simply false. A subjectivist moral stance by no means means allows an agent to do whatever (s)he pleases without considering the interpersonal aspects of his/her actions. The subjectivist begins by acknowledging that all agents hold idiosyncratic value sets and that actions which interfere with another agent's values will have repurcussions, whether (s)he likes the idea or not. The bulk of subjectivist theorizing deals with how best to negotiate the mutual fulfillment of all agents' values.

Alonzo Fyfe

Fine, other agents hold these value sets. So what? Why should this matter to me?

If I have the power to enslave others and get away with it, and I hold a (subjective) value set that says "might makes right." when what criticism can be levied against me for enslaving them?

And if I don't have the power to enslave people, I may be forced by practical necessity to allow them their freedom. But it still makes no sense to say that I morally ought to do so. Any more than the fact that a thief who points a pistol at me and says "your money or your life" provides me with a practical reason to hand over my money -- but no moral obligation to do so.

Malaclypse the Younger

This is simply true, under certain definitions of "allowed to". As my high-school english teacher said, "Avoid the passive voice. Make the agent of an action explicit." Who precisely is doing the "allowing"?

Subjectivism is the observation that people do do "whatever they like". It just so happens that most people actually do like the value of interpersonal effects.

If people in general didn't like interpersonal effects, we would construct a vastly different social structure, Indeed, objectivists would argue that subjectivism is false because it did allow people to consider interpersonal effects.

Malaclypse the Younger

Alonzo Fyfe

None. It is an observed fact that people with the desire and power to enslave people actually do enslave them.

Certainly it makes sense. It makes sense from subjective moral value theory: To say that I find slaveholding immoral is to declare that I advocate coercing people to not own slaves.

The slaveholder's response makes sense from moral strategy theory: Given my hostile and coercive attitute towards slave-holding, it is strategically useful for you to not hold slaves. And again, it is a fact that the last big group of slaveholders had to be coerced into giving up their slaves by a rather long and bloody war.

In other words, moral subjectivism (essentially says), "if you try to own slaves, it is a fact I will try to coercively stop you. I don't care what you value, I care only what you do. Deal with it."

The only part of it that doesn't "make sense" is the fallacious inference that subjectivism is inferior to objectivism because it doesn't prove morals are objective.

The situations are exactly equivalent. The only difference is the prevalence of values. The only fundamental reason that stealing is illegal and imprisoning thieves is legal is that more people value ownership than value theft.

If the reverse were true, you would simply say, "Any more than the fact that a victim who doesn't give me his money when I point a pistol at him and say 'your money or your life' provides me with a practical reason to shoot him--but no moral obligation to do so."

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>