Moral subjectivism vs. moral objectivism

I am a moral subjectivist. To me, values concern peoples’ feelings (desire, pleasure, displeasure, liking and disliking, etc.) toward the object of evaluation.

I believe that science can solve the “objective vs. subjective values” debate. The nature of values can be determined by scientifically investigating the conditions under which these values arise in childhood. If, as I believe, values arise in childhood as a result of the internalization of successive associations between certain value terms, certain behaviours and certain emotions, then values are necessarily subjective. Under this hypothesis, there are other methods to develop (or to come to realize) one’s values, such as verifying the consistency of one’s values (where “consistency” is considered a value), but this latter method must rely on the subjective nature of values and the “value foundations” created by internalization. Thus, moral discourse must not give the illusion that values are objective. Does anyone know of any scientific research done on the issue of the origins of values?

This hypothesis aside, I will argue my case by presenting the distinction between “belief” and “desire”.

To make a value judgement is to make a choice (or at least the illusion of a choice), to commit to that choice, to be happy when one or others live(s) up to that commitment and to feel sad when one or others fail(s) to live up to that commitment. This warrants calling value judgements desires.

Beliefs are of another nature, such as when I say “567+678=1245”, In no way do I want 567+678 to be 1245. I just accept it because it “makes sense”. If someone told me that 567+678=1243, or if I said this, and realized the error, I wouldn’t be mad or sad, I would simply correct the person or myself.

Values and beliefs interact: "In a supermarket, If you pick two apples, then you go to pay for those apples and the cashier charges you for three apples, your belief that you have picked two apples will make you disapprove of the price charged by the cashier.

However, one can’t infer from the description or explanation of a phenomenon, that the phenomenon in question is “good” or “bad”. To continue using the above example: it’s only because you want to pay for what you buy (in this case 2 apples), that you will disapprove of the price charged, for I can imagine someone who would want, for some reason or another, to pay for more apples than he or she has actually picked. The belief that 1+1=2 can’t, in itself, account for your disapproval of the cashier’s behaviour. Nor can a brute fact like “250 million Amerindians died because of colonisation”, wholly account for your disapproval or approval of it.

In another order of ideas, I would like to mention some inconsistencies in the objectivist approach. I find it strange that the objectivist position requires that moral values such as “Killing is wrong” have no exceptions. Why not make such a statement impervious to exceptions by inserting it in a precise context. How would that undermine the objectivity of the more precise statement? Why struggle to follow a general rule like lying is wrong, instead of following more “realistic” context dependant rules. Since, the objectivist position seems routed in the “impression” (by analogy with the axioms of science) that moral values have on him (whether they are universally accepted or not is irrelevant to him for what goes for him goes for everyone), he must be honest with himself. Indeed, I see no necessary reason to restrict objectivity to general statements latent with obvious exceptions for a person. If someone who wants to kill your brother, asks you if he is in your home (and he is), would you tell him the truth? If you had to torture someone who planted a huge bomb in the centre of Manhattan, in order to find the bomb and diffuse it, would you refrain from doing so? If you had to kill a person in order to stop him from pushing a button that would set off that bomb, would you do so? I’m not saying that I am an objectivist, merely that a moral objectivist, since his or her position seems based on “intuitiveness” or “self-evidence”, can’t be consistent if he or she insists on claiming that general rules are objective, while at the same time being disatisfied, or struggling with these rules in some cases. If one responds that the objectivist position is based on general consensus, not individual impressions, I would reply that the “intuitive” consensus would seem to favor “context dependant rules”.

Are you a moral subjectivist or a moral objectivist? Why? Discuss.

Can I be both?

I believe that values are subjective to a certain extent, but they have to become more than subjective at some point in order for us to have convictions about them.

Is anyone without convictions? :wink:

Moral subjectivists should be tortured by Leng T’Che or caning on the soles of their feet, have fire applied to their genitals, then slowly lowered into a bath tub of hydrochloric acid and finally shot in the head or gassed (and cremated) until they admit that torture and genocide are immoral.

The irony of this is that most moral objectivists believe that torture is wrong, including Kant.

morality is a made up word. To argue that its either subjective or absolute is rediculous. show me proof of morals existing in this world and then we can talk about them. they exist as much as them little monkies that are invisible that run around having parties but have a special property that allows them to not collide with other matter in the universe.

Pagans like you should be raped, tortured, and burned until you admit Judeo-Christian morality is objective.

Our Moral Law System:

Life* is good…

*A system of coordinated movements of a concentrated mass for the cause of it’s own reproduction and succeedent “death” or end of a personal life cycle.

greetings jean david
i must say that i enjoyed reading that whole post of yours.
i am a moral subjectivist. or rather, one without morality. feel free to call me ammoral.
i do not know what morals are, who made them up, who is he that we all have to listen to, why i should follow it, or why they are there.
looking at how moral codes vary in time and culture, one man’s good is another man’s evil.
what are the universal laws? if there is any, it would be to make up the laws for yourself. even then, i make and break mine consciously in any situation. i choose accordingly and will not blame any ‘law’ mine or society’s to be responsible for my choice.

yet somehow i feel that one has no right to infringe on the rights of others. is that a sub conscious law of mine or what? hmmm.

pardon my ramble.

See he even admits it to me there! Unless he admits himself an enemy of this his objective Judeo-Christian morality. Otherwise i guess he is going to have to agree with me that Morals dont exist =)

Love thy neighbour dude. :smiley:

Morality isn’t objective because it is a psychic phenomena, and it isn’t a necessary function of the material universe. Human ethics are psychological manifestations and have no effect on the material universe. That is, they are not empirically quantifiable, “mores” and “manners” have no substance and no reactive significance to physical laws; being happy doesn’t cause rain. Now, this is only to say that we cannot classify morality as an “event” like we would the movement of a planet or the vibration of a sound wave, which are emprical and given to be experienced as logical and mathematical. It is not yet showing that “morals” cannot be “objective,” but only that moral phenomena is not a physical force or material manifestation. The question still remains about the possibility for an “objective” truth in a material universe as well as what possible a priori truths might exist for “moral” phenomena, which I shall attempt to explain.

We generally accept that at least a few certain laws(thermodynamics might be one) exist universally and indefinitely. Starting from that we would establish the possibility to determine unchangeable “facts” about, say, particle behavior or, the anatomy of an atom, or an apple falling down(toward center) if gravity is present, the speed of light, the freezing temperature of water, etc., and would note that under any circumstances these facts remained the same. This is not to say that these facts are not contingent, as to prove a necessity for the universe is beyond me, but only to say that during such a period that we have to examine the universe, we see it acting in this way[insert laws].

When I say that physical law conducts the events of the universe and all it’s contents, I am refering to these laws as I would refer to logic and mathematics, as a priori truths. I would say that “objectivity” must exist as a necessary function for the possibility of laws in which to conduct a universe, and that since the material universe can be regarded(or experienced causally) as logical and mathematical then there must be objective truths in a material universe.

Even if God throws the dice where we can’t see 'em, he’s still playing by the rules of game.

The question will arise about my reasons for seperating psychic phenomena from empirical objects, which I did to start. I have determined that there are a priori truths about the material universe, that they are logical.

A demonstration of “logical” would be the conclusion we would come to after watching an apple fall down 99 times and dropping it one more time, previously assuming that it would fall that last time just as it did the 99 times before. The conclusion that the apple would fall was logical because, first, the event only involved two possibilities, that it fall or not. Second, because given the parameters of the experience the “facts” about that event most likely wouldn’t change so abruptly such that the apple flew off into the sky(Hume would love that, eh?). The laws that caused the apple to fall the first 99 times will most likely hold for the last time. This specific event is dialectical, it is logical because the outcome is binary: “is” or “isn’t.” There doesn’t exist a synthesis of both possibilities such that the apple fell down and then flew off. The scenario and the possibility for what ever calculated outcomes can exist does not include a third or fourth possibility, therefore I will say that the conclusion is rational and logical. It involved mathematical functions and not evaluations or presuppositions to any further extent other than to assume that to calculate physical bodies in motion at one point is to calculate them at any point.

To a full degree the empirical universe operates and conforms to laws, whether they be internally or externally doesn’t matter(delete “god” argument). I deduce that by the very possibility for there to be experience there must be a priori truths about a system of existence whatsoever, objective facts about the structures of experience and the world.

Here is where I split moral psychic phenomena from mathematical and logical objectivity, but not yet declare that morality isn’t objective.

Experience of Mathematics:

Conscious awareness of the world is fundamentally and immediately a quantifiable experience. The first division is that of the “self” from the object one is conscious of(a dichotomy), the next and so forth, is that of the plurality of objects in scenario. Mathematics is a prior to the experience of each division. The first duality is that of the consciousness and the being of which it is conscious. “Two,” if you accept that etymology, represents this first structure for experience: “me” and “that.” Call it an ontological subtraction. Further experience of the world involves distinguishing objects from “one”(accepting the etymology)another, these negations(time/space relation of objects in position) are conducted mathematically and logically. It is therefore true that along with the a prior objective truths necessary for there to exist a material universe and the laws thereof, there are also a priori truths for and in experience of this physical world.

Experience of Morality:

One does not experience an ethical act like one experiences objects in the world. Morality does not involve any empirical calculations about physical events in the world, and would therefore show no evidence for quantifiable facts in which one would come to conclusions by logic: it isn’t logically true that if John doesn’t murder Jim with the intention of commiting what he considers an “evil” act, and changes his mind, that he will most likely shave his head, take up roller skating, and collect donations for a charity to save the poor, considering this act “rightous” or “good.” If John intends the contrary of what a morality would deem as a “good” act, like collecting donations, and does so because he believes that letting the poor die would be a “good” act and gives donations to keep them alive; an “evil” act in his eyes, then the logic behind his act isn’t empirically verifiable like the falling apple, for instance, and either act; killing or collecting charity; is equally objective in the sense that is is a possible fact. What you will see is that if there are to be any moral objective truths, they would have to be facts about all possible “intentions” and the structure for ethical experience. These truths are not derived from material quantity and calculation, they are not given to mathematics in this sense but may nonetheless be conducted by logic and rational thinking, as human “intention” always involves a rationalization of motives/acts/ends as possibility.

It may be possible to find some objective “truth” to human morality, but we will not find it in the realm of empirical and material dynamics. It will require a metaphysic and some thicker thinking about human nature(tendency).

If we can believe that, for all intents and purposes, ALL HUMANS ARE THE SAME in that their experience conforms to a priori structures: what we’ll call the object/time/space triad, we will deduce from this that human interaction and ethical ends are the same for every single individual. Can I say that everyone would do the same thing in circumstance “A,” not necessarily the same empirical act, but necessarily the same psychological intention for whatever act is taken?

Any takers?

To go ahead and spit it out, Jean-David, I’m going to ask if these “feelings” can be objective. I’m not focused of what “evaluations” might or might not be, yet.

Jean-David and de’trop, completely enjoyed reading your marvelous contributions. But allow me to first address Warrior-Monk. Personally, I do love my life. But guess what? If my torture would save the lives of a million people, well then, as much as I hate to say it, bring it on! My life is very important to me. But to you and the other six billion people, my life does not really mean much at all.

In other words, I am completely a moral Subjectivist. I may be a pacifist, but I still recognize the fact that people are being killed to protect my freedom. Well, it sucks, sure. But hey, my Coffee this morning was really good. And if I want, well then, I can move off into the woods and drink really bad Coffee. But personally, I would rather continue to exist in the real world, drinking great Coffee, and pretending like I am not contributing to the Wars around the world. Now, I know that anytime, the so called enemy can get the upper hand, and then I would be tortured for the expense of other people’s morning Coffee. That sucks. But . . . if I do not like it, I can stand up anytime. But guess what? I am not going to, because if I stand up, I will no longer receive my good morning cup of Coffee.

Now, just in case it was not obvious, I am not speaking just of Coffee, but of all the pleasures we enjoy, including being able to speak our minds on the internet. I love this world. It is so beautiful. But hey, people get tortured and killed all the time. It is so easy to say, “ah, poor people, who are getting hurt.” But it is much more difficult to act against it. I like the simple route. So hey, next time you feel like sticking up for the little guy, then go here. I hope you enjoy your life away from your computer and all the pleasures of the world. Beacause, personally, I like drinking Coffee in the morning and using my incredible fast computer. I admit, I love technology, and if I few mind-less people, who I have never meet, have to die to provide my 2.8 Giga-Hertz processor, well, too bad. Now this is moral Subjectiveness!

de’trop,

“objective/subjective: Distinction between propositions or judgments about the way things are and those about how people think or feel about them. The truth of objective claims is presumed to be entirely independent of the merely personal concerns reflected in subjective expressions, even though is difficult to draw the distinction precisely. Thus, for example: “Spinach is green” is objective, while “I like spinach” is subjective. “Seventy-three percent of people in Houston don’t like spinach,” however, seems to be an objective claim about certain subjects.”
quoted from philosophypages.com/dy/o.htm#obje

A “feeling” is objective in the sens that it is true or false that “someone feels a certain way about something”, but is subjective in the sens that when someone says that he or she likes spinach, that person is not saying anything about spinach itself, but is stating his or her relationship to spinach. Thus “feelings” are both objective and subjective depending on the way you look at them.

"a priori/a posteriori: Distinction among judgments, propositions, concepts, ideas, arguments, or kinds of knowledge. In each case, the a priori is taken to be independent of sensory experience, which the a posteriori presupposes. An a priori argument, then, is taken to reason deductively from abstract general premises, while an a posteriori argument relies upon specific information derived from sense perception. The necessary truth of an a priori proposition can be determined by reason alone, but the contingent truth of an a posteriori proposition can be discovered only by reference to some matter of fact. Thus, for example:
“3 + 4 = 7.” is known a priori.
“Chicago is located on the shore of Lake Michigan.” is known a posteriori. "
quoted from philosophypages.com/dy/a5.htm#a-pr

I’m not certain that there is such a thing as the “a priori”, however, I recognize that your arguments supporting this notion are convincing. Ok. So lets assume the a priori/a posteriori distinction. “Feelings” are neither a priori nor a posteriori since “feelings” are not “knowledge”. Even if everybody on earth claimed that “killing is ok in such and such situation”, that wouldn’t mean that this claim is “knowledge”. As I have stated before, knowlegde or the psychological phenomena of ascent doesn’t involve emotion. Emotion is involved in our quest for knowledge, in our search for the truth and elimination of falsity, in our reliance on logic as a tool as opposed to mysticism, etc. Emotion is the motivation to do such things. But logic and mathematics themselves, inferences are purely non-emotional. There is a fundamental difference between, “what makes sens” and “what I desire or like”. I may like or dislike “what makes sens”, but what makes sens nevertheless makes sens.

JD,

Thank you for the tutorial, but I am familiar with the terms “objective” and “subjective” as they are used in philosophy.

Let me say that so far I am not arguing one way or the other. What I am trying to do is open another angle of approach. And yes, I might have to create new terms to express my ideas(hey, I don’t want to hear it, Kant did it, why can’t I?)

The strongest argument I can come up with in favor of moral objectivity would be a sort of makeshift materialism. I would say that human action as well as intention, as it involves real objects in the world which are objectively(mathematically) quantifiable, are necessarily objective and not from without the system. If you think about this argument in deterministic terms, it should be easy to admit that “subjectivity” is an impossibility as there is never a suspension of the whole for an individual: that is, there is never a possible objective truth for one and only one. Therefore, anyone in the event of deciding whether or not to favor chocolate ice cream would decide the same thing. That this is impossible, as I can never have “your” experience, is not the point here. The point is that in any experience whatsoever, every moment is precisely determined by the causal relationship of objects in the world, so any possible evaluations are also objective in that they would be for everyone as they are for one individual, while allowing for the possibility that two people never have the same experience.

Is it objectively true that killing is wrong? That isn’t the question I’m asking here, because there is no such thing as “wrong” in the first place. Is it objectively true that in the event of “A,” there will be arise event “B” and “C?” Yes, absolutely. Think of human psychic intentions(moral ends) as a series of A’s and B’s, not as statements of value.

There is no such thing as “good” tasting spinach. There is, however, the possibility that an individual be in such a circumstance where they experienced spinach in such a way that caused them to make the statement: spinach is “good.” But this might only mean that that individual favors spinach over celery, so “good” is relative to “bad” tastes, like the celery. But what is objective is the fact that that person was going to, under those circumstances, declare the goodness of the spinach in comparison with the celery, as would anyone with such an experience. Strictly speaking “Materialistically,” human morality can be reduced to acts that coorespond to physical objective truths and therefore do not occur outside of the realm of logic and mathematics. “Subjectivity” is only “incomplete” objectivity.

This is the kind of stuff I’m improvising, JD. I have said nothing yet, and am only approaching from an angle I have never considered.

I’m not sure what you mean by ““Subjectivity” is only “incomplete” objectivity”?

I have doubts about materialism… materialism looks at everything from a third person perspective, while denying the first person perspective. That our feelings, thoughts, intentions, sensory experiences and so on correspond (that they are correlated) to specific brain patterns and that these brain patterns are determined (causality), I do not dispute. However, I disagree that the realm of psychological phenomena is “=” to the material, to brain processes.

Thus, I claim that there is such a thing as the subjective (one’s relationship to the objective). However, as I have said before, “one’s relationship to the objective” is also objective (the way things are). Both the material and the mental are objective (they are).

Here is an intersting book on metaphysics and epistemology:

forums.philosophyforums.com/show … php?t=5363

It develops an interesting thesis, neutral monism, as opposed to materialism, idealism or dualism. It’s a long read, but it’s worth it!