DRFseven

I'm a moral subjectivist. Once I asked a cashier to add nine clay pots of geraniums to my grocery bill, which she told me to pick up on my way to my car. When I got home, I noticed my receipt did not include the plants, so I drove back and paid them. Being subjective does not mean being indirect or wishy-washy about morality. It means acknowledging that value judgements are human constructs and, therefore, subjective. The idea of taking something that is not mine is repugnant to me due to my socialization (primarily the strong input from my mother) as well as my perception that society runs better when we don't cheat and steal. However, as you are probably aware, there are groups who do NOT hold the same opinion; to them stealing and cheating (at least from some) are opportunities for advancement for which one deserves praise, not condemnation. I am not prepared to say I, personally, know what is right for every situation on earth, though I think I am right for mine.

DRFseven

By the way, Mochalocha, in the pregancy example you cited, in my opinion, the chief consideration should be for the child and it would be wrong not to accept responsibility. However, I am not sure that society would be best served by this attitude; perhaps society is better off not forcing unwanted parenthood on its most vital members. For me, the course would be clear, but I realize it is driven by emotion and not predictive knowledge of the future.

The AntiChris

DRFseven

I don't think this is a particularly good example of the subjectivity of morality. Certainly there are individuals, and groups of individuals, who'll attempt to exploit what they see as weaknesses in "the system" - we all do it to a lesser or greater extent.

However, I doubt that thieves and cheats really believe that stealing and cheating is morally "right". Do you really think a cheat or thief would praise you if you cheated him or stole his property?

The suggestion seems to be that our actions will always precisely mirror our own personal moral belief system and I think this is patently untrue - we all do things we're either ashamed of or things we think we can "get away with".

Whilst I share the subjectivists' natural aversion to the use of the word "objective" when applied to morality, I am not at all convinced by the subjectivists' apparent denial of any kind of shared universal morality.

Chris

DRFseven

Yes, we all sometimes violate our own moral codes; that is not the situation I am describing; I am referring to people who acquire that moral system in the same way you acquire yours. Whether you believe it or not, there are neighborhoods in the U.S. where you don't dare venture, but where complicated codes and situations exist that allow them to continue. It's not impossible to imagine a whole country who would encourage and applaud an act you and I would find reprehensible; such as, say, flying a huge fuel-laden jet into a building full of thousands of people. Do you really believe attitudes like this are momentary lapses in universal moral codes? No, they are part of the universal method of moral acquisition - we learn that behaviors and attitudes are right and wrong by experiencing parental modeling and life in a society, and those beliefs become a defining part of us. If children in the U.S. observed the glorification of people who strapped bombs to themselves and who blew up those against whom they sought revenge, if they saw the streets bedecked with giant photos of these "martyrs", if they were sold the idea of an afterlife that richly rewarded such acts, we'd have suicide bombers here, too.

Mochaloca

DRF Seven post: Somehow, I don't think we are using morality or even subjectivty in the same way. I guess I should have spelled out my view of morality at the outset. To me morality comes from the belief that people are born with an innate capacity for altruism, along with the ability to choose whether or not to act on that capacity. To me, morality is concerned with abstract concepts of "good" & "virtue," beyond mere survival.

If I read your post correctly, (as well as the other subjective moralists) you believe morality is at its core mainly concerned with survival, whether of the individual, society or human beings as a species. Clearly, in the context in which you view morality, everyone's views have equal validity and are "subject" to that person's view of what is required for survival.

In my view, because humans have a capacity to do so much more than survive, as well as a need (think Mazlow's hierarchy of needs), morality is a standard of behavior which consists of balancing altruism with self-interests, encompassing concepts such as truth truth, compassion, courage, etc. As I stated previously, it is an "ideal" for which we should constantly be striving.

To me, the law is the absolute minimum standard of morality. In most instances the proscribed conduct is the lowest standard that society will tolerate. As in the case of the question asked by the prospective bio. father in the other thread, I do not believe the correct moral standard would be based totally on whether it could be enforced fairly between both the mother and the father. Though that is definitely a consideration of the courts, because their concern is (purportedly) mainly based on "fairness," and not with what is the highest moral conduct in this situation.

(Side note: This is also the problem I have with "so-called" religious morality. Instead of being based on any true altruism toward other humans, it's based on the wishes of a mythic diety, and the fearful consequences of not adhering to those wishes.)

As for the law, it would enforce financial responsibility on the bio. dad under the specific facts in that case. And, even with a law "on the book," that says parents are responsible for their biological children, we still have a situation in which hundreds of children have been "misplaced" in Florida. These were children taken from parents who abandoned, abused and/or neglected their kids to an extreme degree. This is just one jurisdiction, in one State.

My point is, if morality is merely concerned with survival, especially of individuals, there is not much chance of improving such situations as described above without resorting to coercion or force.

Well, I could go on, but I hope you get where I'm coming from. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now!

Ciao! M.

p.s., Please imagine emotive smiley faces in appropriate paragraphs. Apparently, my computer skills are at such low measurable levels that I can't figure out how to insert them. Damn!

DRFseven

Well, you started off this thread by saying that you wanted to discuss how an atheist could hold a subjective morality. Now you are saying that, to you, morality is not subjective and that we are talking about two different things! In any case, "good" is a value judgement, not a thing in itself; it can only describe value placed on a thing. In the second place, the phrase "beyond mere survival" seems to indicate that, in your opinion, there is something more important than "mere" survival. As I'm sure you realize, that is just an opinion and we have means by which to judge the superiority of one opinion over another. It's like the statement that apples are superior to oranges; could that ever be shown without adding a qualifier (such as "for making apple pies")? Likewise, survival cannot be shown to be the superior objective; it's just that only survivors are even here to discuss the matter. But even if we all died off, is there any reason to say we should NOT have perished?

But Maslow's whole hierarchy was based on physiological survival. IF we want to survive, we must have air, water, nutrients, sex, safety, love, respect, and self-respect. The last stage was his "self-actualization", which he thought could only be obtained after all the survival needs were met.

How do you come to have any idea of what the "highest moral conduct" might be, other than through personal feeling? The only way you could possibly ascertain such a thing is to pick a goal and make a determination regarding what furthers that goal. Without naming a goal, how do you know the "highest moral conduct" is not cheating and stealing? In truth, without a subjective goal, there can be no "highest moral conduct" because you're still saying apples are superior to oranges without a context in which to say it. Do you disagree with this?

The AntiChris

DRFseven

I guess it's an issue of definition. I doubt that thieves and cheats necessarily have a different "moral system". I suspect they merely violate their own moral codes more than the norm.

It's not impossible to imagine a whole country who would send significant numbers of its young adults to a foreign country, in defence of a perceived cause, in the certain knowledge that innocent foreign civilians and a number of its own soldiers will die.

The fundamental, shared, moral principle here seems to be that it is legitimate to kill and be killed in defence of a "cause".

I'm aware that my view of morality is probably unconventional, or just plain mistaken (I've only recently started thinking seriously about the subject and am still forming my own ideas), but I can't help feeling that subjectivists make the mistake of seeing differences in strategy as indications of differences in fundamental moral belief.

Chris

Jamie_L

I consider myself somewhat of a subjectivist. I don't think that means denying the existence of commonly held moral instincts throughout the human race. We're all human, and morality is based on the social interaction of humans. Thus, it's quite likely that all human cultures share some basic, funadamental moral codes.

But it's all still constructed by humans. That's what makes it subjective. Killing fellow humans without sufficient reason is essentially wrong almost universally among human cultures. (The differences arise in defining the "sufficient resons".) This isn't because there is some external, universal standard that defines killing as wrong. It's because human's developed this morality (probably because human society wouldn't work all that well if we killed each other arbitrarily - or more arbitrarily than we already do).

Jamie

DRFseven

Under the broadest definition of moral objectives, almost everybody has the same goal - to survive. But in terms of actual use, that is, deciding how to achieve that in light of various circumstances we actually have different moral systems. Do cultures that practice infanticide have the same moral system as cultures that prohibit it? How about cultures who have institutionalized what WE would call sexual abuse of children? Or groups like the Taliban, who make the brutalizing and subjugation of women a moral imperative? If the conduct which stems from the moral code is exactly opposite in two different cultures, how can that be said to be the same moral code? The whole point in HAVING the moral code is to know how to behave in a situation. We have differing moral codes within societies and even within families. If you have to go so broad as to say, "Well, we all want to survive", to find a commonality, then what good is that for a moral comass; it gives no direction.

As far as whether people are actually operating under different codes or are merely violating universal codes, I would suggest you read some of the literature on hate group and gang ethics. I think you will be surprised at what is modeled and taught to children from enclaves in our own societies.

Just think of what you're saying. Where does "fundamental moral belief" come from? People certainly aren't born having any opinions on moral issues; children will think whatever you want them to think about right or wrong because they have nothing on which to base anything else and no way to judge you as being wrong (yet!). Those opinions are generated by way of particular ideas of right and wrong, as well as the reasoning, itself, being presented by parents/caretakers and, to a lesser extent, by other societal forces. These opinions are transferred with emotional attachment, which forms the basis of the conscience.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: DRFseven ]</p>

Mochaloca

DFR Seven: I guess you are a better person than I am.:-)

I understand I did not make myself clear in my original post. My objective in starting this thread was to get some idea of how subjective moralists actually define morality, i.e., what morality is to you without any modifiers.

From my perspective, I believe I now understand your point of view.

I view Maslow's hierarchy as a description of a psychologically healthy human being, not as a survival guide.

Yes, I disagree with this. Clearly, we do not share the same definition of morality. I am not so arrogant as to think I can change your point of view. And since I don't think the fate of the world hangs in the balance, I am content to agree to disagree. You?

Chris: I have been thinking seriously about this subject for over fifteen years and I've come to the same conclusion. Great minds....I guess!!:-)

ciao,
M.