Tom Piper

Some quotes from another thread will set the stage for the question I have in mind here.

In response to a question about whether under hypothesized conditions women would have an obligation to have children, tronvillain responded by saying (The emphasis in the quotation is mine)

I asked tronvillain the following: Tronvillain's response was As I read tronvillain's closing comment, it suggests that he/she thinks there are ways of being morally wrong that don't involve violations of moral obligations. The first question I'd like to pose here is,

1. Is it true that one can do something that is morally wrong without violating a moral obligation? If so, please supply examples that will illustrate!

The second question I would like to pose is

2. If one is a moral subjectivist, can one ever find another person morally blameworthy? If so, please supply examples that will illustrate!

I don't have any particular notion of 'moral subjectivism' in mind here, nor can I propose a definition. Part of my reason for posing this question is to try to find out what some of you mean by 'moral subjectivism'.

Tom

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Piper ]</p>

vixstile

This tread will quickly turn into yet another predictable sub/ob jective argument.

I think ill try to stay out of this one

Pomp

Tom,

As another moral subjectivist, I'll take a shot at answering these questions.

1. Is it true that one can do something that is morally wrong without violating a moral obligation? If so, please supply examples that will illustrate!

It depends a bit on how you define "morally wrong," and I usually try to avoid such loaded terms, but the short answer is "Yes." The fact that we are not obligated to obey normative moral principles does not mean that we cannot be termed "morally wrong" when we violate them. As an analogy, I am under no obligation to obey the standards of dinner party ettiquette, but it makes perfect sense to say that my actions are "wrong" with respect to those standards if I slurp my soup and wipe my mouth on my sleeve. Similarly, I am under to obligation to obey normative moral principles, but it makes perfect sense to say that my actions are "wrong" with respect to those principles if I walk out into the street and start shooting.

2. If one is a moral subjectivist, can one ever find another person morally blameworthy? If so, please supply examples that will illustrate!

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "morally blameworthy," so forgive me if the question I answer is not the question you asked. I think the question you are asking is something like "If no one set of values is objectively valid, how can we ever fault an agent for pursuing his/her own values, even when that pursuit is detrimental to the rest of us?"

The subjectivist answer, of course, is that we can find fault with the behavior of an agent merely because it is detrimental to our own values. No special moral case need be made. For example, I find fault with people who hijack airplanes and fly them into skyscrapers because I abhor unnecessary violence, not because such violence is "wrong."

Part of my reason for posing this question is to try to find out what some of you mean by 'moral subjectivism'.

I hope my answers here are helpful. On this same note, I am trying to compose an essay describing my own subjectivist moral views, which I hope to post here soon.