It's not logical. It must be psychological. His drive for objectivity is psychological, and it is of such force that it overrides logic. — S

Yeah, that could be.

What you're saying is illogical. I don't need to go outside of myself for any reason, and I cannot do so anyway. My own judgement is all I have, and all I need. He is wrong in this way - the only way that matters as far as I'm concerned. He should change his judgement. — S

What is your argument than to person b who has a different subjective judgement that he is incorrect, other than - "in my opinion" any other argument you chose must be adding a degree of objectivity.

and as an aside - i am not championing any morality over another on this point -
my argument is just pointing to what i think is a logic flaw.

If all judgments are subjective - than all judgments are subjectively correct - I see no way around this

Per what you're saying above, I can't subjectively compare "not okay to rape others" and "okay to rape others," But I don't know why. It seems like it would be easy to compare them, especially since I already have a view about it, that view being "It's not okay to rape others." When I consider "It's okay to rape others" I reject that, because I don't agree with it. — Terrapin Station

go ahead and make the argument please - tell me why my subjective judgment that rape is not immoral.

I'm not comparing subjective judgements. I'm comparing his actions to my subjective judgement, not comparing his subjective judgement to my subjective judgement. I don't care about his judgement, its his actions that bother me. — Isaac

you have missed the point - neither person A or B have done the action - person A and B are making subjective judgments on the same action X - than someone else did

go ahead and make the argument please - tell me why my subjective judgment that rape is not immoral. — Rank Amateur

It's a subjective judgment comparing two stances. It's not an argument about it in the sense of premises leading to a conclusion. What I explained is all that needs to be involved.

Are you not saying that we can't make a subjective judgment comparing two different stances?

What is your argument than to person b who has a different subjective judgement that he is incorrect, other than - "in my opinion" any other argument you chose must be adding a degree of objectivity. — Rank Amateur

Opinion, if you call it that (I prefer the term "moral judgement" as it conveys the importance better), is all I have. It is founded on moral feelings. I would try to get him to empathise with my feelings on the matter. This can and does work in some cases. It is very evident when a child realises that they've behaved badly by, for example, snatching a toy out of another child's hand. At first, they judge that what they did was morally acceptable, but then you get them to empathise with the victim.

If all judgments are subjective - than all judgments are subjectively correct - I see no way around this — Rank Amateur

Relative to those individual subjects. Relativists are relativists, remember? Not absolutists.

So what? This is not a problem in itself. It is not a problem for me. There is no internal contradiction. The only logical error here is your own. It is a problem for you. (It's ironic when this happens, because it's the same sort of error in not understanding moral relativism).

you have missed the point - neither person A or B have done the action - person A and B are making subjective judgments on the same action X - than someone else did — Rank Amateur

In that instance I refer you to what @Terrapin Station said above with regards to judging stances.

Opinion, if you call it that (I prefer the term "moral judgement" as it conveys the importance better), is all I have. It is founded on moral feelings. I would try to get him to empathise with my feelings on the matter. This can and does work in some cases. It is very evident when a child realises that they've behaved badly by, for example, snatching a toy out of another child's hand. At first, they judge that what they did was morally acceptable, but then you get them to empathise with the victim. — S

no issue at all with that - that is my point - as long as the basis of every argument you make is your own subjective judgement. Any plea to anything else adds some degree of objectivity.

Are you not saying that we can't make a subjective judgment comparing two different stances? — Terrapin Station

this is very hard - we can all make whatever subjective judgments we want, you can even say your subjective judgement of my subjective judgement is wrong.

But if you are committed to subjectivity - there is no way to compare subjective judgments. Each attempt is just one more subjective judgment.

no issue at all with that - that is my point - as long as the basis of every argument you make is your own subjective judgement. Any plea to anything else adds some degree of objectivity. — Rank Amateur

Some degree of objectivity doesn't make any real difference. That I feel a certain way about something is itself factual, not opinion. That's a degree of objectivity. That still doesn't mean that morality is objective. There is no objective standard, as feelings differ. We don't accept that different beliefs about the moon indicate an objective standard. The moon can't both be made out of cheese and not made out of cheese, and relativism doesn't help here. Morality isn't like that. It's different. And relativism is useful for making sense of it.

maybe this is a better way of me making my point.

My subjective moral judgment is that Hitler did nothing that is morally wrong.

Assume your subjective moral judgement is Hitler did lots of stuff that was morally wrong

Make an argument - absent of any objective moral standard to change my mind

Some degree of objectivity doesn't make any real difference. That I feel a certain way about something is itself factual, not opinion. That's a degree of objectivity. That still doesn't mean that morality is objective. There is no objective standard, as feelings differ. We don't accept that different beliefs about the moon to indicate an objective standard. Morality isn't like that. It's different. — S

getting closer - my view is there is no such thing as either absolutely subjective or absolutely objective morality - it is a continuum and we place ourselves somewhere on that continuum.

maybe this is a better way of me making my point.

My subjective moral judgment is that Hitler did nothing that is morally wrong.

Assume your subjective moral judgement is Hitler did lots of stuff that was morally wrong

Make an argument - absent of any objective moral standard to change my mind — Rank Amateur

Are you like a child who has just snatched a toy out of the hand of another child? No, I don't believe that you are, so no argument from me is necessary. I've already explained what I would try to do. You don't need to see me act it out with you. You are more intelligent than that.

Are you like a child who has just snatched a toy out of the hand of another child? No, I don't believe that you are, so no argument from me is necessary. I've already explained what I would try to do. You don't need to see me act it out with you. You are more intelligent than that. — S

that is a non answer to a direct question -

But if you are committed to subjectivity - there is no way to compare subjective judgments. Each attempt is just one more subjective judgment. — Rank Amateur

Sure, and I'm not saying that it's anything more than a subjective judgment.

I just don't get saying that there's no way to compare them. We're comparing them subjectively.

that is a non answer to a direct question - — Rank Amateur

You didn't ask me a question, you gave me a challenge which I refused on the basis that it isn't necessary. Don't pretend to be unintelligent.

You didn't ask me a question, you gave me a challenge which I refused on the basis that it isn't necessary. Don't pretend to be unintelligent. — S

and now we enter semantics - and ad hominem - seems the discussion is nearing an end

getting closer - my view is there is no such thing as either absolutely subjective or absolutely objective morality - it is a continuum and we place ourselves somewhere on that continuum. — Rank Amateur

No one, as far as I'm aware, has claimed that there's an absolute subjective morality. Moral subjectivism can acknowledge aspects of objectivity relating to morality, but these aspects are not of any logical significance in the broader context of what the debate is about. You can't kick a puppy if there is no puppy. That there is a puppy is factual, objective. But that's insignificant in proper context.

maybe this is a better way of me making my point.

My subjective moral judgment is that Hitler did nothing that is morally wrong.

Assume your subjective moral judgement is Hitler did lots of stuff that was morally wrong

Make an argument - absent of any objective moral standard to change my mind — Rank Amateur

Rather than trying to make an argument for that--because it would take a lot of time, take a lot of steps, etc. I'll explain how I'd go about doing it.

Basically, one needs to ferret out other stances that the person has, and then try to appeal to them via those stances. In other words, it's a matter of "trying to talk them into something" using things that they already accept/that they're already comfortable with, to try to lead them to a different conclusion. Or, this is similar to the traditional sense of what an ad hominem argument is--it's a matter of appealing to views the person already has, appealing to their biases, to push them to a different view. (But in this case, the ad hominem approach isn't a fallacy, because we're not even dealing with things that are true or false, correct or incorrect, though it is necessarily manipulative.)

At that, it might not be possible to persuade the person to a different position. "Hitler didn't do anything morally wrong" might be foundational for them, for example, so that it doesn't rest on any other views they have. Or their stances might be so situation-specific that there's not a sufficient way to generalize that would lead them to different stances.

and now we enter semantics - and ad hominem - seems the discussion is nearing an end — Rank Amateur

It's very relevant that you seem to be feigning ignorance in order to get me to do something which I judge to be unnecessary. It is no fallacy for me to point that problem out. You are choosing not to progress past this problem by returning sensibly to what we were talking about. You have a bad habit of blaming other people when a discussion doesn't go your way. I make no apology for refusing to let you wrap me around your finger.

If it's all becoming a bit too much for you, then you're free to do what you usually do. The door is over there.

Basically, one needs to ferret out other stances that the person has, and then try to appeal to them via those stances. In other words, it's a matter of "trying to talk them into something" using things that they already accept/that they're already comfortable with, to try to lead them to a different conclusion. Or, this is similar to the traditional sense of what an ad hominem argument is--it's a matter of appealing to views the person already has, appealing to their biases, to push them to a different view. (But in this case, the ad hominem approach isn't a fallacy, because we're not even dealing with things that are true or false, correct or incorrect.)

At that, it might not be possible to persuade the person to a different position. "Hitler didn't do anything morally wrong" might be foundational for them, for example, so that it doesn't rest on any other views they have. Or their stances might be so situation-specific that there's not a sufficient way to generalize that would lead them to different stances. — Terrapin Station

fine with all that - your right I don't change my mind. And it leaves us with two different subjective options about the morality of Hitler and no objective way to resolve our differences.

that does not seem a good endpoint to such a moral judgment to me.

we are good - as soon as you acknowledged, as you did that there needs to be some degree of objective view in comparing moral judgments - i am fine - I have no need to find where exactly that line is.

Then your morals would be out of step with your community. That would put you 'in the wrong'. — Pattern-chaser


People who think that "out of step with their community" amounts to "wrong" in any manner are the last people I want to be spending time around. — Terrapin Station

If you have understood that I posted a personal moral verdict, I have miscommunicated, and I apologise. I merely note that any community would consider the views of one of its members who disagreed with every other member as "wrong", wouldn't they? :chin:

fine with all that - your right I don't change my mind. And it leaves us with two different subjective options about the morality of Hitler and no objective way to resolve our differences.

that does not seem a good endpoint to such a moral judgment to me. — Rank Amateur

Well, but isn't it clear to you that no matter what we do, whatever we believe about meta-ethics, we're left with people with diametrically opposed moral stances? That's hardly a new situation, and it's hardly the result of there being a bunch of meta-ethical subjectivists or relativists.

If we're all objectivists we don't magically arrive at a scenario wherein we all have the same moral stances. We just believe that the folks with other stances are incorrect, that they're unreasonable, etc. That doesn't help change anyone's mind.

My meta-ethical views are not not supposed to be a solution to everyone having the same moral stances. It's just aiming to get right what's really going on ontologically when it comes to morality.

I merely note that any community would consider the views of one of its members who disagreed with every other member as "wrong", wouldn't they? — Pattern-chaser

Depends on the community and who we ask. But sure, it's not unusual that a lot of people are pro-conformist enough that they think that.

we are good - as soon as you acknowledged, as you did that there needs to be some degree of objective view in comparing moral judgments - i am fine - I have no need to find where exactly that line is. — Rank Amateur

That's fine, so long as you don't twist what I say and walk away with a misunderstanding which you perhaps don't even realise is a misunderstanding. That some degree of objectivity is required to make sense of morality is completely irrelevant. Moral subjectivists are not solipsists. It would be foolish to treat them as though they were, by interrogating them about the objectivity involved which no reasonable person would deny.

If we truly agree, then fine. But I object to fake or illusory agreement.

But sure, it's not unusual that a lot of people are pro-conformist enough that they think that. — Terrapin Station

I'm not convinced that 'pro-conformist' is a position one would choose. Societies (communities) are quite demanding of their members. Conformity is one general requirement that communities make of their members, although specific and individual non-conformities might be tolerated, up to a point. Don't you think this is how societies work in the real world? It seems so to me. :chin: [ I offer no moral judgement, only my observations of how the real world seems to be, to me.]

Here's an interesting link I just found today. It's not about this specific issue, but it's about culture and societies, and the effect they have upon us and our lives. I've never read anything like it, although I have had vague feelings in this direction for some time. Worth a read, I found. :up: :smile:

That's fine, so long as you don't twist what I say and walk away with a misunderstanding which you perhaps don't even realise is a misunderstanding. That some degree of objectivity is required to make sense of morality is completely irrelevant. Moral subjectivists are not solipsists. It would be foolish to treat them as though they were, by interrogating them about the objectivity involved which no reasonable person would deny. — S

I will leave here subjectively believing what I darn well please and there is nothing subjectively you can say to change my mind :)

Well, but isn't it clear to you that no matter what we do, whatever we believe about meta-ethics, we're left with people with diametrically opposed moral stances? That's hardly a new situation, and it's hardly the result of there being a bunch of meta-ethical subjectivists or relativists.

If we're all objectivists we don't magically arrive at a scenario wherein we all have the same moral stances. We just believe that the folks with other stances are incorrect, that they're unreasonable, etc. That doesn't help change anyone's mind.

My meta-ethical views are not not supposed to be a solution to everyone having the same moral stances. It's just aiming to get right what's really going on ontologically when it comes to morality. — Terrapin Station

Exactly. There are so many common misconceptions in this topic. I've seen this one before, and I'm sure you have.

I will leave here subjectively believing what I darn well please and there is nothing subjectively you can say to change my mind :) — Rank Amateur

I can deal with that. It's not an uncommon experience for someone to have. No technique is guaranteed to succeed, and that is completely irrelevant as Terrapin rightly argued. But remember that in your task, you're the one who believes that Hitler did nothing morally wrong. I wouldn't even want to associate with you if that was really your view.