Dr. Retard

How does that differ from the 'moral of the story' for objectivists? "There is an objective fact of the matter, so the only way to resolve moral disagreements is by rational argument and persuasion".

Or couldn't a subjectivist take another moral to heart? "There's no objective fact of the matter, so the only way to resolve moral disagreements is by indoctrination and social pressure".

Honestly, people come away with all sorts of attitudes towards resolving moral disagreements, no matter if they're subjectivist or objectivist.

And, what's more, if the subjectivist practices wholesale subjectivism about the 'appropriateness' of behavior, then there is no objectively appropriate way to resolve moral disagreements. Narrow dogmatism and tolerant inquiry are on all fours -- some of us just happen to like one more than the other.

excreationist

Alonzo Fyfe:
If one wants to claim that there is a link between objectivism and dogmatism, then one has to apply this to science as well as to ethics, where scientists think that there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether one claim is better than another.

Objectivism implies the possibility of error, and the possibility of error invites questioning, investigation, theory formation, and the like.....
Perhaps "being objective" (i.e. trying to be unbiassed) is different to "objective morality". I'm assuming the moral objectivist "knows" the correct morality. Maybe it is a bit like "materialism" meaning only the physical world exists and "materialism" meaning that money and wealth are what matter. The words are the same but I think the meanings are a bit different.

I disagree. Again, using science as a model of an objective field of study, objectivism admits to the possibility of error, "I know..." is no more of a demand in objective ethics than it is in objective science.
I think you're confusing the concept of "objectivity" (trying to be inpartial/unbiassed) with "objective morality" - which I was assuming involved a person claiming to "know" that something is definitely bad - or good - "because it is" - or because "God says it is".

Dr. Retard

Just quickly, how exactly could a moral subjectivist be mistaken in his/her moral opinion? Poor faculties of introspection?

excreationist

Dr. Retard:
Just quickly, how exactly could a moral subjectivist be mistaken in his/her moral opinion? Poor faculties of introspection?
I didn't say that they could be mistaken about what their moral opinion is.... I said that if they don't speak using precise language, they can appear to be dogmatic to others.

.....And, what's more, if the subjectivist practices wholesale subjectivism about the 'appropriateness' of behavior, then there is no objectively appropriate way to resolve moral disagreements. Narrow dogmatism and tolerant inquiry are on all fours -- some of us just happen to like one more than the other.
They can try and argue their case about why they think their morality ("how one should live") is better. They could try and show the other person the benefits of adopting that morality.

Alonzo Fyfe

I considered putting this in my list of items distinguishing objectivists from subjectivists -- that error is possible for the objectivists (who take right and wrong as an external fact) but not the subjectivist (who take right and wrong as a report of an internal sensation), but rejected this.

Subjectivists may not be in error in saying "X-ish things are wrong" (which is simply a report of "I don't like X-ish things). But a subjectivist may still admit to the possibility of error in determining of instance I is an X-ish thing.

Objectivists hold that one can be in error when making the claim "X-ish things are wrong." In addition, the objectivist also holds to the possibility of error in saying "I is an X-ish thing."

This, by the way, suggests that objectivists should be less dogmatic than subjectivists, because the more of the objectivists' premises are subject to the possibility of error than the subjectivist.
So, both admit to the possibility of error. Only, the objectivist has more things that he can be wrong about than the subjectivist.

Dr. Retard

OK, it looked for all the world like you were saying they might be mistaken.

Quote:

.....And, what's more, if the subjectivist practices wholesale subjectivism about the 'appropriateness' of behavior, then there is no objectively appropriate way to resolve moral disagreements. Narrow dogmatism and tolerant inquiry are on all fours -- some of us just happen to like one more than the other. They can try and argue their case about why they think their morality ("how one should live") is better. They could try and show the other person the benefits of adopting that morality.

Sure, they can. But if they're wholesale subjectivists, then they have to believe that this policy (showing and persuading) is not really any better than other policies (like indoctrination). It's just that they happen to like that policy more than the alternatives.

The AntiChris

I suspect it differs very little, if at all, for most non-theistic moral objectivists who've given the subject a little thought.

The trouble is, many people don't give it much thought at all.

Chris

Alonzo Fyfe

The traditional definition of an objective morality, as distinct from a subjective morality, is that the objectivist says there is a fact "out there" (in the object) to be discovered and the subjectivist says that the fact is "in here" (in the subject) -- in my attitude toward that which is being evaluated.

Note that the OP uses the term "moral realism" as well as "objective ethics."

There is no necessary connection between believing that there is a fact "out there" to be discovered and I, without any possibility of error or refutation, have successfully discovered it.

excreationist

Alonzo Fyfe:
Ok...


Peter Kirby:
What difference does subjectivism make, practically speaking? That is, compared to the hypothetical that moral realism is true, how would people behave differently if:

1. Moral realism is false, but people believe in objective ethics anyway.
Whether moral realism (objective morality?) exists or not doesn't affect how people will act - only people's beliefs about it affect their behaviour. (And these beliefs are often based on evidence, but you said they'd still believe in objective morality anyway)

2. People believe that ethics are subjective, but each person's values differ in no other respect.
So you mean everyone in the world would think that morality is subjective, yet their moralities would all be identical? Well when discussing objective vs. subjective morality they'd all agree, and in other situations, their behaviour in moral dilemmas would be the same as well...