Subjective Morality page 9

320 posts

Flag Post

Subjectivists hold that each opinion is equally meaningless, all on level footing; that really there is no truth, no right or wrong answer. Objectivists believe that the moral strata they’re on is more proper, more true.

If that is the correct description for both sides, I’d say both are wrong. A person using the subjective morality system holds his own opinions as “better” than others, otherwise he does not have any opinion at all (by definition you believe in that opinion over another). This would, ironically enough, be exactly the same as your description for a so-called objectivist. The objectivist, I would suggest, entirely claims there is an objective moral system in place. There is a natural law which describes to us which morals are correct to have, and which aren’t. The objectivist must agree that people do not have to follow these morals, but they would be naturally incorrect. Of course, there’s not a shred of evidence for that, so it all falls to that person claiming it and making it no better than what I described as a subjectivist.

Frankly, I’d say your definition of a subjectivist would be better described as a “hard” subjectivist, and mine would be a soft one. Your definition of an objectivist would be a soft one (even though it doesn’t really differ that much from my soft subjectivist) and mine would be a hard one. Suffice to say I disagree with the hard subjectivist, the hard objectivist and, possibly, the soft objectivist. I cannot agree with someone claiming there is an objective system in place when it is naturally and rationally possible to disagree. I also cannot agree with someone claiming his own opinions are equally worthless as others, as that would inherently contradict himself.

On the other hand, just because people can have opinions on the objectivity of something, doesn’t mean it is subjective.

If a person can rationally disagree with the objectivity of an issue, it cannot be claimed as objective. For example, I can’t rationally disagree dogs exist. I can’t rationally disagree I’m a human being. But I can rationally disagree “prettiness” is an inherent feature of a painting. I can rationally disagree moral issues are inherently correct or not.

Either God has created morality along with everything else He created, and it simply is, and it is irrelevant of your opinion, or there is no God and it’s all just senses and opinions. There is no other way to cut it

As Tenco stated, there is. God can exist without having created an objective morality system. In fact, I’m not sure if I can even agree God from the Bible created an objective morality system. It sounds more like a subjective morality system imposed on us humans.

WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? The discussion can go no further, besides us telling the other one that they are wrong, and I don’t particularly want to hear any more of that garbage.

What I want is to teach you our claims are not equal. Science investigates the objectivity of an issue. If we cannot find this objectivity, your claim of its objectivity is less likely to be true than my claim of its subjectivity. If you don’t like it works like that, you can always reject science, but you’ll find it’s pretty hard to do that without still accepting parts of it.

As an example, when I claim there is a pink fairy shooting black holes in my room, it is less likely to be true when we find no evidence of that than the claim the pink fairy is not there.

 
Flag Post

Vika,

Ung, unless you can show that whichever objective system you sponsor is entirely objective and impartial, equally applicable to all situations, then you will not convince anyone here that an objective moral system is in place, and that our own perceptions of the situation are incorrect.

You must have misunderstood me. I am by no means an objectivist, I am a staunch subjectivist. I personally ascribe that there is no particular moral valuation beyond individual preference. I prefer mine, certainly, but accept that they have no innate authority then any others as they all stem ultimately from the same source. I am all for imposing an authority, but that is based on my preference towards getting what I want/consider beneficial, as opposed to any disparity of source.

I don’t believe an objective moral system is in place. I am merely trying to establish that the terminology is in reference to perspective.

Dark,

If that is the correct description for both sides, I’d say both are wrong.

Dark, that’s logically unsound. Either some moral vectors are true, or none are, you can’t have it both ways.

person using the subjective morality system holds his own opinions as “better” than others, otherwise he does not have any opinion at all (by definition you believe in that opinion over another). This would, ironically enough, be exactly the same as your description for a so-called objectivist.

Yes, but if he believes they are better due to a suprematist absolute value then he is making claims to an objective morality. I believe my views are better, I do not believe they differ in authority or source. All are merely ideas of conduct, all have different paradigms of preferential value. I value some things differently then others, that is all. Are my values innately of some seperate, superior character? No I am just partial to my understanding and experience of them. I am the supreme, absolute, arbiter of value; and to their mind so is everyone else.

As soon as something else intercedes upon authority of valuation then we are running into external imposed universal values.

The objectivist, I would suggest, entirely claims there is an objective moral system in place. There is a natural law which describes to us which morals are correct to have, and which aren’t. The objectivist must agree that people do not have to follow these morals, but they would be naturally incorrect. Of course, there’s not a shred of evidence for that, so it all falls to that person claiming it and making it no better than what I described as a subjectivist.

I agree to everything there. Not sure where we’re at odds there. I understand if you find moral objectivism not a very convincing outlook to ascribe to, and that it ultimately winds back into personal moral valuation. It does really, but it encompasses the idea of there being something else, a separate arbiter of value beyond the entitlement of opinion. God, absolute universal values, what have you.

Frankly, I’d say your definition of a subjectivist would be better described as a “hard” subjectivist, and mine would be a soft one. Your definition of an objectivist would be a soft one (even though it doesn’t really differ that much from my soft subjectivist) and mine would be a hard one. Suffice to say I disagree with the hard subjectivist, the hard objectivist and, possibly, the soft objectivist. I cannot agree with someone claiming there is an objective system in place when it is naturally and rationally possible to disagree. I also cannot agree with someone claiming his own opinions are equally worthless as others, as that would inherently contradict himself.

I don’t see why having an objective system in place would remove the ability for people to disagree. Consider basic biblical morality, some things are wrong, some things are right, we have free will, it’s a test, -cause God said so. Objective moral system, freedom to differ. As for the subjectivist I see no sense of contradiction in it. I like what I like, he likes what he likes. Neither of us are “right” neither of us are “wrong”, we simply differ. I like what I like better and I aim to achieve it, if I and my moral clone find a dollar – I’ll try to take it, I have no greater justification then him, I simply want it.

If a person can rationally disagree with the objectivity of an issue, it cannot be claimed as objective. For example, I can’t rationally disagree dogs exist. I can’t rationally disagree I’m a human being. But I can rationally disagree “prettiness” is an inherent feature of a painting. I can rationally disagree moral issues are inherently correct or not.

What’s your criterion of rational here? Really all you can offer is an equal opposite view point. Perhaps that contrary view is frequent. Is frequency valuable? That’s a moral valuation.

As Tenco stated, there is. God can exist without having created an objective morality system. In fact, I’m not sure if I can even agree God from the Bible created an objective morality system. It sounds more like a subjective morality system imposed on us humans.

I, for the record, agree with that ending line. But that takes us a little farther down the ol rabbit hole. One can model God as an external authority moral valuator, but that in itself is subject to being a matter of personal valuation.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:What I want is to teach you

No. Move on now. This is as clear as I’ll be. In the future I’m just going to ignore it.

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:God can exist without having created an objective morality system. In fact, I’m not sure if I can even agree God from the Bible created an objective morality system. It sounds more like a subjective morality system imposed on us humans.
If God is real, and God’s creations are subjective, then wouldn’t that make everything that we consider to be objective just to be His projections of subjectivity? I’d agree to that definition of subjective morality: Morality that are measurably true and false, but created based on the opinions of an omnipotent, perfect, and righteous deity. In that case, there really isn’t much of a difference between morality and God, which draws us back to the fact that perhaps morality is just a projection of God into works, which then draws us back to objective morality. If morality, according to God is actually just God in works, then perhaps it is a measurable fact, and goes beyond God’s opinion, to what God is. As the book says, God is good.

 
Flag Post

Either some moral vectors are true, or none are, you can’t have it both ways.

You misunderstood this at the point you read and replied to my quote, I believe in later replies you did understand, so I’m just going to go ahead and say it’s explained later on.

Yes, but if he believes they are better due to a suprematist absolute value then he is making claims to an objective morality.

It sounds like you’re viewing this too black and white, initially. I propose a system with four separate classes instead of two. I’m neither a subjectivist or objectivist with your current definitions, as I do think my opinion is worth more than others. Subjectively. That isn’t implied by your definition.

I don’t see why having an objective system in place would remove the ability for people to disagree.

Okay, maybe I’m looking at this too broadly. What you may be saying is that there is an objective moral system for a specific group of people. For example, working at a certain firm holds you to certain rules. These rules are objective, as they count for all people in that firm. But a person not working there does not have to follow these rules. Certain religious groups have certain objective rules set up which you can’t reject if you want to be part of that group. I fully understand such a thing. If this is what MyTie is implying, I don’t disagree, but currently I’m thinking he imposes the system on all people. That is something that can’t be right.

It is indeed different when there is a God who imposes laws upon us and punishes us for not following them. The rules are very objective, but we can still subjectively disagree. That is, we can’t disagree the laws exist, but we can disagree the laws are good. So, I really just think we’re talking about different layers here. The existence of these laws (objective) is vastly different from the correctness of these laws (subjective).

What’s your criterion of rational here?

I’d say any rational person would agree dogs exist. Any rational being would agree I’m a human being. You’re being irrational when you joke about it or play with current definitions. Dogs exist because we observe them. I’m a human being because I fit the definition of a human being. Both of these are objective in the sense that every rational person can independently agree with them, and cannot logically disagree.

“Prettiness” is a subjective label. It does not exist in physical form. Any rational person would agree that you can’t point to a painting and say “this painting is defined as pretty, because of X and Y”, since prettiness is inherently subjective. If you argue that prettiness is objective, and you can objectively define when a painting is pretty, you need to prove it. Since you can’t, a critic will reject your proposition. That doesn’t mean prettiness isn’t objectively defined, but the label prettiness can’t be pointed out anywhere, since people can independently differ when placing it.

A moral system itself is objective in the sense that it exists (even when you just made it up), but it will subjective in the sense that people can disagree those are good or correct. I think it’s a big difference that must be made clear.

In that case, there really isn’t much of a difference between morality and God, which draws us back to the fact that perhaps morality is just a projection of God into works, which then draws us back to objective morality. If morality, according to God is actually just God in works, then perhaps it is a measurable fact

Okay, I don’t disagree it is possible when a certain type of god exists that god created a morality system as a natural law. These natural laws “punish” you when you take a wrong decision and may reward you when you take a correct decision. This is all possible. It’s also possible there is a god which created us with the ability to independently label something as good or evil. I understand you don’t have evidence, which is why I point you towards our currently assumed state: morality doesn’t seem objective, and gods don’t seem to exist, considering the currently claimed features. Again, that doesn’t mean it isn’t that way. It just seems more likely. And I’m currently not being rewarded or punished, significantly, for taking right or wrong decisions, according to the Bible.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:If this is what MyTie is implying, I don’t disagree, but currently I’m thinking he imposes the system on all people. That is something that can’t be right.

I don’t think objective morality necessitates imposing those morals on others. That’s not what I’m about. One does not imply the other. Some things are wrong. Does that mean that people shouldn’t be allowed to do wrong? That’s a tougher question. First, we are contending with if there is wrong. The rejection of wrong, in all of its heinous color, is what I am arguing against.

 
Flag Post

Some things are wrong.

In your choice of objective moral system (since it’s a registered one), sure.

First, we are contending with if there is wrong. The rejection of wrong, in all of its heinous color, is what I am arguing against.

There is a wrong, and some systems are set up with rules that define these wrongs. Some other people have personal feelings about them and may not belong to a group that set up rules within that group. So, the former is objective, the latter is not. Objective in the sense that the “wrongs” are documented. So, I don’t disagree there are wrongs in certain systems, I just wouldn’t say people can be called “wrong” outside that system (if not wrong in their own system, or all systems).

Even so, something being “wrong” in all documented moral systems does not make an action objectively wrong for a person not part of any of those systems. It makes it wrong within that system, simply not outside it.

 
Flag Post

MyTie,

As the book says, God is good.

Ooh. That’s the punchiest summary of biblical moral objectivity. Well said. I suppose my problem with properly awarding God himself moral orthodoxy is that it is self awarded. God is good, cause God says so. If his authority as a moral vector trumps the human spectrum, it is only on the circular basis of it’s own presumption as an authority.

On a less logical, more scriptural tone; I would suggest that the Genesis narrative suggests we are on the same moral grounding as God, as per his own suggestion.

Dark,

It sounds like you’re viewing this too black and white, initially. I propose a system with four separate classes instead of two. I’m neither a subjectivist or objectivist with your current definitions, as I do think my opinion is worth more than others. Subjectively. That isn’t implied by your definition.

Hrm. I suppose it isn’t. But, let me pose a question for you. Why is your view worth more?

Okay, maybe I’m looking at this too broadly. What you may be saying is that there is an objective moral system for a specific group of people. For example, working at a certain firm holds you to certain rules. These rules are objective, as they count for all people in that firm. But a person not working there does not have to follow these rules. Certain religious groups have certain objective rules set up which you can’t reject if you want to be part of that group. I fully understand such a thing. If this is what MyTie is implying, I don’t disagree, but currently I’m thinking he imposes the system on all people. That is something that can’t be right.

I would say the suggestion is that it applies to all people. Let me take a stab at an example. I like Red, it is my favourite colour. You like Green, it is your favourite colour. We have a room that needs painting. Now, regardless who gets their way I do not think either of us are “right” or “wrong”. We just have differing opinions, differing values. I like mine and want to get it, but I would never claim that Red is Better, just that “I” like red better.
- So Subjectivism.

But then! God swoops down with his best buddies. He says, Blue is the best. Not that he likes Blue better, or prefers Blue personally. But that Blue Is Better, and that we two are both wrong. That’s an absolute hierarchy of values. -So, Objectivism.

It is indeed different when there is a God who imposes laws upon us and punishes us for not following them. The rules are very objective, but we can still subjectively disagree. That is, we can’t disagree the laws exist, but we can disagree the laws are good. So, I really just think we’re talking about different layers here. The existence of these laws (objective) is vastly different from the correctness of these laws (subjective).

Well I agree – but I find that to be the second round of things. What determines correctness? Objectivity has a set answer, one that may not stand on any grounding beyond it’s own declaration. Whereas Subjectivity has nothing that doesn’t unfold to the same question. What is Truth? What is Good? My answer is Nothing, always Nothing. To quote some of my favorite people “Nothing is true and everything is permitted.”

I’d say any rational person would agree dogs exist. Any rational being would agree I’m a human being. You’re being irrational when you joke about it or play with current definitions. Dogs exist because we observe them. I’m a human being because I fit the definition of a human being. Both of these are objective in the sense that every rational person can independently agree with them, and cannot logically disagree.

So you’re attaching value to observations, and to the repetition of that observation throughout a populace. Say I suggest the whole world is a trick, made to make people stray from the “good path” by the devil, and that these observations are tempting illusions and that their repetition is just a sign of people succumbing to temptation. Then I see everything you suggest as valuable, as invaluable. The only true way is the god within, visible only to yourself. One must separate from the illusory material delusion. Or so on. It’s all a valuation. What is Good?

“Prettiness” is a subjective label. It does not exist in physical form. Any rational person would agree that you can’t point to a painting and say “this painting is defined as pretty, because of X and Y”, since prettiness is inherently subjective. If you argue that prettiness is objective, and you can objectively define when a painting is pretty, you need to prove it. Since you can’t, a critic will reject your proposition. That doesn’t mean prettiness isn’t objectively defined, but the label prettiness can’t be pointed out anywhere, since people can independently differ when placing it.

I feel this is a reiteration of valuing observation and the repetition of observation. If people disagree it is false, it is without value? Only if one ascribes value to that in the first place.

Even so, something being “wrong” in all documented moral systems does not make an action objectively wrong for a person not part of any of those systems. It makes it wrong within that system, simply not outside it.

Yes! to nail that down. The question is presumption of authority, presumption of orthodoxy. Two systems, two views, one claims to be right.

 
Flag Post

Why is your view worth more?

It is subjectively worth more, not objectively. Let that be a first.

Secondly, if I didn’t think my opinion was worth more, I wouldn’t have held this opinion. It may seem like semantics to you, but my opinion is the one I “like” most, the “best”. It’s worth the most, to me.

But then! God swoops down with his best buddies. He says, Blue is the best. Not that he likes Blue better, or prefers Blue personally. But that Blue Is Better, and that we two are both wrong. That’s an absolute hierarchy of values. -So, Objectivism.

I would say the suggestion is that it applies to all people.

These two statements cannot match until either God is proven to exist or everyone is a Christian. See, I do not deny there is an objective morality system out there. It perfectly describes rules for those who correctly consider themselves Christian. I simply reject those rules apply for everyone, since why should I follow rules of anyone making up a bunch of rules (remember that while Christianity is one of the biggest, you could easily apply this to all moral systems)? The people within that moral system think I am immoral if I do not follow their rules, but in the same way I might think my neighbour is immoral for not cleaning up the public space in front of his house. The only difference is that they made a set of rules out of it due to sharing their morals with more people. If I found enough people agreeing with me, I’m sure we could set up a bunch of rules for our neighbourhood (this happens in houses where independent people live together). Yes, for those within the system, the morals may apply to all people, but logically you cannot really claim this. I would find it absurd if people would think me immoral for not doing their dishes, since clearly their set of rules within their house does not apply to me. Why should anyone else’s rules that I do not agree on apply to me? Of course, the laws within my country apply to me, since I’m a citizen, and I’m no match for the police. The laws of my own religion apply to me, since I agree with them. But the rules of another religion? They don’t apply to me. Their gods haven’t struck me down yet for doing something against their rules (eating a cow is forbidden in India, I believe), so they don’t have the manpower to enforce it.

What determines correctness?

Your own imagination. Seriously, it is subjective, nothing about it can be objectively “determined”. It is an opinion. So, I could tell you why I think something is correct, but it may not make sense to you if you disagree.

Whereas Subjectivity has nothing that doesn’t unfold to the same question. What is Truth? What is Good? My answer is Nothing, always Nothing. To quote some of my favorite people “Nothing is true and everything is permitted.”

I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me here, but yes, those things that are subjective cannot be defined as one side or another, since they are merely labelled by an individual.

Say I suggest the whole world is a trick, made to make people stray from the “good path” by the devil, and that these observations are tempting illusions and that their repetition is just a sign of people succumbing to temptation.

Equally likely is that the world is a trick, made to make people stray from the evil path by God. In other words, something that we cannot observe, logically conclude, or otherwise claim with proper evidence does not hold, especially not if there’s an equally likely hypothesis which is completely contradictory with your original hypothesis. You would be arguing to always do “good” (according to God), because it’s possible a god exists that wishes for this. But at the same time there could only be an evil god (the devil, if you will) which will punish you if you do not commit “evil” acts. We can only form truth on what we observe and logically conclude. From there on, we can form objective definitions and subjective labels.

If people disagree it is false, it is without value? Only if one ascribes value to that in the first place.

Not sure what your point is here. A label is not without value, to the person placing that label. It may indeed have value to other people, if they value that person’s opinion. But, to a rational critic this label should not hold any value when determining the “prettiness” of a painting. Sure enough, the prettiness doesn’t even exist, since it’s an individual label. You can’t pinpoint it.

The question is presumption of authority, presumption of orthodoxy. Two systems, two views, one claims to be right.

The claim of being right doesn’t hold much water if they can’t prove it, so essentially their objective morality system only differs in the sense that it is documented. My moral views aren’t documented, so they’re not objectively defined, but that doesn’t make them less valuable to me than one’s objective morals are to them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:>Ooh. That’s the punchiest summary of biblical moral objectivity. Well said. I suppose my problem with properly awarding God himself moral orthodoxy is that it is self awarded. God is good, cause God says so. If his authority as a moral vector trumps the human spectrum, it is only on the circular basis of it’s own presumption as an authority.

Well, either God is good, or there is no God. Either their is God, and He is perfect and good, or there isn’t. It isn’t a matter of His bias. He either is or He isn’t God. If He is God, than He is good. That’s why, as I’ve said, this discussion can really be summarized as “Is God?”.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Well, either God is good, or there is no God. Either their is God, and He is perfect and good, or there isn’t.

Stop forcing yourself to believe only in absolutes. it’s where your reasoning falls down.

god may be good-ish, or God may be a spoilt brat. Or god may be quite evil, and a good spin doctor. Perfection is equally as nebulous as good. There could be multiple Gods, same as there are multiple daemons.

There are many possibilities. If you open your mind to include the possibilities of shades of grey, it helps things dramatically.

 
Flag Post

So you are saying there might be “sort of” a God? Like, a deity who is kind of good and stuff? I hope he is nice, n stuff.

The idea behind God is perfection. God is the absolute. That is the basis for my understanding of objective morality. If God is only “sort of” good, sometimes, then what the hell IS good?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

If God is only “sort of” good, sometimes, then what the hell IS good?

‘Good’, like ‘evil’ is subjective to the perspective of the viewer. What benefits one, takes from another.

So, good is a nebulous term really. How you define it must depend entirely on your own point of view.

 
Flag Post

I think we have different understanding of what a deity is. Unsurprising.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

I think we have different understanding of what a deity is. Unsurprising.

Correct. Because different perspectives are entirely subjective.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by MyTie:

I think we have different understanding of what a deity is. Unsurprising.

Correct. Because different perspectives are entirely subjective.

Yes, perspectives are entirely subjective.

 
Flag Post
Subjectivists hold that each opinion is equally meaningless, all on level footing; that really there is no truth, no right or wrong answer.

I must have missed that. This definition almost perfectly applies to my brand of subjectivism. Possibly somewhat closer to moral nihilism, though?

 
Flag Post

Dark,

You had a big block of text there and I don’t want to clutter by quoting it. I agree that you do not have any obligation towards an objective moral system, I agree if you balk at the idea of it applying to you. But it is used to describe their opinion; and that is of a higher absolute morality system. I understand if you reject it, and agree with your decision to, but it is a step of absolutism between “I like” and “such is good/bad”. That’s the primary difference. You don’t have to agree with their view, doing so would you make you them. I just feel our working definitions are getting bogged down by your approval of the stance.

Your own imagination. Seriously, it is subjective, nothing about it can be objectively “determined”. It is an opinion. So, I could tell you why I think something is correct, but it may not make sense to you if you disagree.

I agree, but it is something of a pandora’s box. There is no innate value to anything, it is only ascribed relative to the approval of the viewer. That is a fairly powerful statement.

Equally likely is that the world is a trick, made to make people stray from the evil path by God. In other words, something that we cannot observe, logically conclude, or otherwise claim with proper evidence does not hold, especially not if there’s an equally likely hypothesis which is completely contradictory with your original hypothesis. You would be arguing to always do “good” (according to God), because it’s possible a god exists that wishes for this. But at the same time there could only be an evil god (the devil, if you will) which will punish you if you do not commit “evil” acts. We can only form truth on what we observe and logically conclude. From there on, we can form objective definitions and subjective labels.

But there is no logical conclusion to moral valuation. It is all arbitrary. Give me a moral vector, any moral vector, and show me how it is definitively, rationally, logically ‘good’. To value logic, to value rationale, is an arbritary moral vector. You make a statement about capturing truth, who is to say truth is valuable?

Not sure what your point is here. A label is not without value, to the person placing that label. It may indeed have value to other people, if they value that person’s opinion. But, to a rational critic this label should not hold any value when determining the “prettiness” of a painting. Sure enough, the prettiness doesn’t even exist, since it’s an individual label. You can’t pinpoint it.

I would suggest that you hold some labels as universal moral constants, which ascribe value universally as a standard for the ‘good’ of others people opinion. If you truly believe there is no innate value then one must also let go with the rational justification of views.

The claim of being right doesn’t hold much water if they can’t prove it, so essentially their objective morality system only differs in the sense that it is documented. My moral views aren’t documented, so they’re not objectively defined, but that doesn’t make them less valuable to me than one’s objective morals are to them.

IF you are right, then on what grounds? Does this hold true for everyone? What is the value of proof? I feel you are trying to justify an objective veneration of pattern repetition of observation= into the scope of subjectivity. I feel such a thing is not tenable. Something is true, or nothing is. What is the value of proof?

 
Flag Post

I must have missed that. This definition almost perfectly applies to my brand of subjectivism. Possibly somewhat closer to moral nihilism, though?

Glad to hit the nail on the head. It first harkens towards moral nihilism as the traditional models of moral valuation fade away. However, to recant “There is no value except what is ascribed by the viewer” is no defeat to valuation. Rather, it imposes a heavy burden to each actor, as he must now assume full accountability for all moral valuation. It is an escape from such a burden to suggest that all is meaningless, but it is also dishonest. Meaning is within you, is you, and the expression of ones self is the root of all meaning.

One becomes one’s own justification, that is no nihilism but self expression as the root of all valuation.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Captain_Catface:
Subjectivists hold that each opinion is equally meaningless, all on level footing; that really there is no truth, no right or wrong answer.

I must have missed that. This definition almost perfectly applies to my brand of subjectivism. Possibly somewhat closer to moral nihilism, though?

Yeah, and the opposite of what I believe. They believe that morally, opinions aside, Adolf Hitler is equal to Thomas Jefferson, Pol Pot to Ghandi. I think this is ego centric. I believe this form of subjective morality is based on a desire to excuse one’s actions, to justify one’s faults, instead of reckoning that one’s actions may actually be wrong, and that there is a need to change. Nihilism is the most self excusing belief I find, which is also dishonest, and narcissistic. “There’s nothing wrong with me, because I don’t believe in wrong”.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

There’s nothing wrong with me, because I don’t believe in wrong”.

From an individul perspective, there never is. It is only when these people try to interact with societies and sub-societies that have a vastly different interpretation of ‘morals in common’ that the problems occur.

These people usually do believe in wrong though, wrong being the opposite of their behavior. For example, to some it is wrong to llow others to sleep with those they love, if those they love share the same gender as them. To others it is wrong to dictate who sleeps with whom, based solely on their gender.

Like everything else, ‘wrong’ depends entirely on your point of view.

 
Flag Post

No no, I get it vika. It’s disgusting. The whole thing is disgusting. Way to weave homosexual sex into the discussion, as if this wasn’t controversial enough. How about we keep it cut and dry, like genocide? According to you, absent of opinion, there isn’t anything measurably WRONG with genocide. That disgusts me.

 
Flag Post

That was my point, MyTie. you find homosexuality is inherently wrong according to your own subjective moral views, other people (including me) see absolutely nothing wrong with an individual’s choice.

According to you, absent of opinion, there isn’t anything measurably WRONG with genocide.

There is nothing wrong with it from the perspective of those behind the killings – they are just doing their moral duty.

Those affected by the killings are utterly against it, as it is beyond theitr ability to comprehend, more often than not, just why they are being targeted – nothing in their morality justifies it.

Others looking on may root for it, or be absolutely appaled by it, depending on their individual moral stances.

 
Flag Post

My morals aren’t subjective, as they don’t come from myself, nor from any other person’s opinion. They come from the only measure of objective morality that exists: God.

 
Flag Post

They are subjective, based on your understanding of what your deity wishes. They have no hold outside of yourself and those who follow your own belief system.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

They are subjective, based on your understanding of what your deity wishes. They have no hold outside of yourself and those who follow your own belief system.

Based on what the diety said. He ensured His words were written down as He wanted. He is morality. Since He is morality, that is the measure to use. All other measures are wrong, as there is only one God. It doesn’t matter how I understand God. God doesn’t change. He is how He is, and my opinions will never change Him.