Alonzo Fyfe

It depends on what you mean by "my society".

In the pre-war south, "my society" would have been a slave society. In the Afghanistan of the Taliban, "my society" would have been a regime of oppression, domination, and terror.

To the degree that "my society"contains evils, I do not want "my society" to continue. I want it to improve. However, to a subjectivist, there is no real distinction between the steps that may be taken to create a better society than there is to make a better pizza. Just season to your own personal taste.


If you are wanting to argue for some type of contractarianism, then we are not going to find much to disagree about. Our difference would be merely semantic, because I would not classify contractarian theories as subjective -- though the preferences that the contractors bring to the table are subjective. The contract itself is objective.

What I mean by "subjective" morality are those where an individual looks only to one's own feelings as the final and sole determination of right and wrong. It is a view that treats different "theories of morality" as no different than "theories of pizza." It has no place for the concerns of others, except insofar as the individual just so happens to have an interest in the welfare of others.

But if, instead, you are concerned with the preservation of "my society" -- as you said in the first paragraph, whether this involves cooperation or not depends on whether "my society" is a society of cooperation or not. If not, then introducing cooperation into a non-cooperative society does not seek to preserve it, but to replace it with a different society.

DRFseven

The desire to benefit, itself, is subjective, Alonzo. You might find ways to say you each objectively benefit, but the whole desire to benefit is, of course, subjective. Your behaviors are subject to your desires, i.e., subjective.

That's not the definition of subjective morality. In a subjective morality the behavior in question is valued as good or bad. All value judgements, being, after all, judgements, are subjective; subject to the opinion of the one judging.

Quote:

It is a view that treats different "theories of morality" as no different than "theories of pizza." It has no place for the concerns of others, except insofar as the individual just so happens to have an interest in the welfare of others.

Completely wrong. In studies, even children note a difference between conventional rules and moral rules. Moral choices involve "right and wrong"; other choices don't. And plenty of subjectivists are overwhelmingly concerned with the concerns of others, just as many objectivists are. This is because everyone acquires their morals through the process of socialization, no matter what they call themselves.

Alonzo Fyfe

First, define "benefit". One of the things that will be discovered is that a "desire to benefit" is substnatially tautological and thereby empty.

Second, desires are both subjective and objective. They are subjective in that they exist in the mind. They are objective in that they exist in the mind as real objects. (More specifically, they are words that refer to brain functions -- but it is still a matter of objective truth or falsity whether a given desire exists in a given mind.

It is here that the classic distinction between "objective" and "subjective" breaks down. We like to think of these as mutually exclusive categories -- one can be an objectivist or a subjectivist but not both. In this area here, one can be both.


First, define "benefit". One of the things that will be discovered is that a "desire to benefit" is substnatially tautological and thereby empty.

Second, desires are both subjective and objective. They are subjective in that they exist in the mind. They are objective in that they exist in the mind as real objects. (More specifically, they are words that refer to brain functions -- but it is still a matter of objective truth or falsity whether a given desire exists in a given mind.

It is here that the classic distinction between "objective" and "subjective" breaks down. We like to think of these as mutually exclusive categories -- one can be an objectivist or a subjectivist but not both. In this area here, one can be both.


Actually, my concern is with the logic of the statements, not with the names that people use.

Objectivity is built into the very meaning of moral terms such that, one cannot learn the language without learning the assumption and the practices that go along with objective morality.

Even those who later come to call themselves subjectivists cannot shake the traditions and habits instilled in them as children. So, even though they use the name "subjectivist", their practices, their forms of argument, everything about their use of moral language still is seeped throughout with objectivism.

They are like a person who claims there is no God, but who yet prays regularly, attends church, reads the bible, and seeks heaven and fears hell.

The AntiChris

But isn't this a common characteristic of the language people use when arguing passionately about a whole range of subjects?

People frequently objectify their personal opinions in an attempt to emphasise the superiority of their own position. That people use such devices in debate is not necessarily evidence that there is, or even that they genuinely believe that there is, an objective fact of the matter.
And this comment is no better than the theist's charge that all atheists are merely denying their own knowledge of God.

Chris

DRFseven

Doesn't matter whether it is or not; only perception counts.

That we experience what we call desire is an objective fact. What we desire is, however, subjective in that it is a product of our personal circumstances. Whatever moral behavior we want to perform is subjectively derived. The judgment of a behavior being "good" lies within the judge, not the behavior. Behavior cannot, in itself, be good or bad; it can only be valued as good or bad by people.

Quote:

Objectivity is built into the very meaning of moral terms such that, one cannot learn the language without learning the assumption and the practices that go along with objective morality. Even those who later come to call themselves subjectivists cannot shake the traditions and habits instilled in them as children. So, even though they use the name "subjectivist", their practices, their forms of argument, everything about their use of moral language still is seeped throughout with objectivism. They are like a person who claims there is no God, but who yet prays regularly, attends church, reads the bible, and seeks heaven and fears hell.

You don't seem to understand that you are, in essence, saying, "Subjectively derived morals cannot be true morals because morals are objective." The reason you are saying this is that in your perception, if a moral tenet is "only" an opinion, it can't be a real moral tenet. You think there is something else for morals to be other than opinions.

Totalitarianist

Yes...

Alonzo Fyfe

True and irrelevant. The two positions are inconsistent, and there are always two possible ways to resolve any inconsistency.

Consistency requires that the subjectivist ceases to objectify their personal opinions in an attempt to emphasise the superiority of their own position. That is to say, the subjectivist must abandon the standard tenants of traditional morality (with its assumption of objectivity).

I will have no objection to raise against the subjectivist who takes this route. My objection is against the subjectivist who continues to abide by all of the rituals and practices inherent in traditional morality with its assumed objectivity.


All atheists? Not at all. Only those atheists who continue to act in every way indistinguishable from a person who believes in God except to utter from time to time the statement "there is no God."

All atheists who act like atheists, and all subjectivists who act in a way consistent with subjectivism, are not subject to this charge in the slightest.

dk

Are these questions unfair, or do you just need more time.

Alonzo Fyfe

dk:

Actually in seeking to provide an example of something valued as an end that does NOT have intrinsic value, I could not come up with anything that was NOT an example.

Intrinsic values do not exist. As an entity, like ghosts and gods, it plays no role in the observable, real world. Yet, there are things that people value as an end (independent of its consequences). Like -- eating certain types of food, pleasure, sex, a pretty sunset.

Every one of these is valued, not because of its intrinsic properties, but simply because we have evolved/learned a desire for these things. We desire them, not a means for something else. We simply desire them -- our brains just so happen to be consitututed that when we perceive a possibility of obtaining one of these things we go for it.

The same thing can be valued by one person independent of its consequences, and not valued by another independent of its condquences, without contradiction because the value is not intrinsic to it, but extrinsic -- depending entirely on the brain structure of the evaluator.

DRFseven

Good way to describe the subjectivity of morality. One person may value suicide bombings as "right" due to life experiences, while another may value suicide bombings as "wrong" due to life experiences. These are moral opinions. Each of these individuals may abhor the opinion of the other and condemn it as an immoral opinion, not because they are trying to mimic having morals, but because they, in fact, DO possess these morals.