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.

2. People believe that ethics are subjective, but each person's values differ in no other respect.

I appreciate the time it takes to answer the question.

best,
Peter Kirby

Alonzo Fyfe

What difference does it make to whom? When you talk about things making a difference, is this an objective difference or a subjective difference?

Ultimately, I do not think it makes a difference per se. The types of things that one thinks are right and wrong is more important than whether one thinks they are objective or subjective.

So, the problem with agent-subjectivism is that it tells a person that the way they ought to treat others is the way that they like to treat others. This is fine if a person likes to treat others well. Not so fine if a person likes to use and abuse others for their own personal gain or is in a habit of seeing others as some sort of inferior life form put on the planet for their benefit.

In both cases, there is the potential problem of basing one's decision on an error. One makes mistakes, and people suffer for those mistakes.
Hard objectivism says that there are certain types of actions and traits of character that are intrinsically wrong no matter what. This, again, is fine if one finds this hard-objective value in treating others well. It is not so fine if one finds this hard-objective value is 2500-year-old bigotries and prejudices written into some assumed bible.

Peter Kirby

I mean, what difference would the two hypotheticals above make in the way that people behave? So far as the way that people behave can be determined objectively, I ask about an objective difference.

best,
Peter Kirby

Alonzo Fyfe

Sorry about the misinterpretation. Let's try this:

First, may I try to rephrase the question.

"You are given serveilance tapes, recorded conversations, and the like from two people. You are told that one is an objectivist, and the other is a subjectivist. At no time do either individuals actually discuss the issue of subjectivism or objectivism. Can you tell which is which by simply observing their behavior -- including their verbal behavior?"

Is this it?

If so . . .


Second, there are many types of subjectivism and objectivism. Let us pick the paradigm example of each; agent-subjectivism and intrinsic-value objectivism.

How can you tell the difference?

(1) Source of data

When confronted with a moral question, "Is X wrong?" the subjectivist will look first for internal evidence (how do I feel about X?) in seeking an answer to that question. If the action is harmful to others, he will still ask the further question, "How do I feel about those others being harmed?" If he cares nothing about them, then they have no moral worth.

When confronted with a moral question, "Is X wrong?" the objectivist will first for external evidence (what does the bible say about X?) or (is X harmful to others?). If one treats harm to others as objectively bad, evidence that something is harmful to others is sufficient, and no further questions are relevant. On the other hand, if homosexuality is objectively wrong, then it does not matter if it brings no harm to others.

To the degree that one notices a correlation between what one says 'is right' and what 'feels good' for a person, the subjectivist says that "X is good because I like X", while the objectivist will say "I like X because X is good."


(2) Disputes

If the agent holds that X is wrong, and he confronts a person who says that X is not wrong (e.g., agent believes that it is wrong to execute children for capital crimes, and encounters somebody who believes it is not wrong to execute children for capital crimes), the objectivist will treat this as a contradiction. One person is right, and the other wrong. (It is possible that both could be wrong, but there is still only one right answer.)

The subjectivist would treat the two statements as different preferences; like one person saying that he likes anchovies on his pizza and the other saying he does not like anchovies. There is no contradiction. However, there may be conflict -- particularly if each person is attempting to promote a national policy based on his or her moral preferences (e.g., one is trying to outlaw anchovies on pizza and the other is trying to make anchovies mandatory).



P.S. I believe that both views -- agent subjectivism and intrinsic-value objectivism -- are mistaken. Both individuals are living in error.

excreationist

Peter Kirby:
What difference does subjectivism make, practically speaking?
Objectivists and people who think their morality is fairly perfect would indoctrinate their kids. People who are subjectivist and are somewhat unsure of their morality would encourage kids to think more for themselves about morality - they could give them rational reasons about why *they* think certain ways (e.g. "it makes me feel sad, so I don't want you to do that") - but they could avoid dogmatic statements like "hurting other people is wrong. It just is".

Alonzo Fyfe:
....To the degree that one notices a correlation between what one says 'is right' and what 'feels good' for a person, the subjectivist says that "X is good because I like X", while the objectivist will say "I like X because X is good."....
Sometimes a moral dilemma involve sacrificing the lives of lots of soldiers in order to fight against something...
The choice mightn't necessarily feel totally good or be something you like - it might be the lesser of two evils. (Though I guess that's obvious)

Dr. Retard

Maybe as a matter of fact, subjectivists do tend to be less dogmatic than objectivists (small-O!). But there's nothing anti-subjectivist about being a dogmatic indoctrinating subjectivist. You believe that the only thing going for your values is the fact that you like them. But still you can want to force them on everyone else.

Objectivists, by the same token, can be really humble and flexible. They believe in objective moral truths, but they don't take themselves to be infallible conduits of truth. They're trying their best like everyone else, and they encourage their kids to talk things out, so they have a better chance of arriving at the right answer.

The AntiChris

Once one accepts that there is no "objective" fact of the matter in moral disputes, it becomes clear that moral disagreements can only ever be resolved by negotiation using rational argument and persuasion.

However, to answer your question, in practice most non-theists (subjectivists and objectivists alike) do tend to justify their moral opinions without recourse to a perceived objective fact of the matter, so I doubt that it makes a great deal of practical difference, at least within the non-theistic community.

Chris

excreationist

Dr. Retard:
If subjectivists were speaking precisely, they'd say "I think X is wrong" rather than "X IS wrong". If they wanted to influence others, a precisely speaking subjectivist would say "I think you should think that X is wrong as well". They'd usually say "You should think that X is wrong" - but that sort of implies objective morality (the lack of "I think").
So if a subjectivist is speaking precisely, I don't think they'd come across as being dogmatic.
Objectivists would say things like "I know" or "this is the Truth" or something - if they say "I thinK" for every element of their morality, that doesn't sound like an objectivist to me.... or perhaps they're pretending they're open-minded when in fact they're not. I'm not saying subjectivists are really open-minded though.... they should recognize that they might be mistaken somehow though... (I think)

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.

Some objectivists may not do this, but the flaw is not inherent in objectivism.

At the same time, it is not inconsistent for a subjectivist, who holds that right and wrong consist in nothing more than what one likes and dislikes, can be said to be doing nothing but imposing their likes and dislikes on others. Whether slavery is allowed or prohibited is little more than people with one attitude imposing their likes and dislikes on others.

Dogmatism is not a test of subjectivism/objectivism. There is no necessary connection.

Alonzo Fyfe

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.

Moral claims are falsifiable to the true objectivist.

Now, faith-based objective morality does tend to be dogmatic. But the problem rests not in the objectivity, but in the faith.