I am a moral subjectivist, ask me anything, bear in mind that my position isn't necessarily representative of the majority of moral subjectivists or anything of the like.
Moral Subjectivism AMA
Posts
Total:
127
-->
@Theweakeredge
If the vast majority of the world approved of genocide, would that make it okay?
That's probably a cliche question, but oh well.
-->
@SirAnonymous
It depends, just because something is subjective, that does not mean that an appeal to populum wouldn't be a fallacy. It is still just as much a fallacy. No the point there is simple, while there is no way to connect this standard to an objective standard of truth, it is true that every single human cares for their pleasure. Therefore genocide would be logically fallacious on the basis that it is impacting the people doing it in a negative way.
Essentially its counter productive and is thereby not morally nor logically justified.
-->
@Theweakeredge
As morality is meaningless to the nihilist, what the nihilist calls morality can only be arbitrary.
Moral subjectivism = I am right
-->
@Theweakeredge
Interesting. I agree that it is true that genocide would impact people in a negative way.
However, what difference does it make if it affects people in a negative way? Why is treating people in a positive way good? It may be true that people like to be treated positively, but how does that generate an obligation to treat them positively?
-->
@Mopac
Incorrect on both fronts, first of all, nihilism in its standard definition does not care of morality, as I care of morality I, by your definition, can not be a nihilist. Second of all, Moral Subjectism just speaks to the lack of objectivity to morality, therefore we apply subjective as the opposite of objective as an adjective to be applied.
Third of all, this violates the standard of the forum, I said, "Ask me anything" as in a question, this is a statement. Therefore I would ask that you actually ask a question.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Because we discover and apply oughts from what is true objectively, because it is true that genocide and harm objectively are negative to humans, we, as humans, ought not to do things which would hurt us.
Moral obligation is not necessarily dependent on Morality being objective, just there being some standard we can apply.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Essentially because we ourselves our humans we ought to act in such a way that would care of good and bad to us, it is simply the case that it is not objective, and is because we are human
-->
@Theweakeredge
Nihilism is the philosophical position that there is no absolute truth.
Basically atheism.
When there is no God, I am God!
That is what moral subjectivism is. Self righteousness.
-->
@Mopac
You not only did not address any points, but you also do not address my actual position.
There is an absolute truth, that truth is simply not god, and there is no truth in regards to morality. It is true however that we live on earth, that I am a human, a male, gay, etc, etc These things are all true, you are simply of flawed reasoning.
Again - I ask you to actually ask questions instead of asserting nonsense on an AMA (Ask me anything) ASK not assert, notice how SirAnoyomous formatted their objection in a question? Even that would be fine.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You say you identify as a homosexual.
In what way is it not degrading to identify with one's sexual behavior?
In what way is it not degrading to identify with one's sexual behavior?
-->
@Theweakeredge
there is no truth in regards to morality
This is moral nihilism.
As I said.
I'm genuinely confused about what you mean, could you clarify your question, but also could you ask this in MY AMA, https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5104-theweakeredge-ama
-->
@Mopac
Which does not equate to nihilism in totality. Which is what you referring to as that which does not make sense.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because we discover and apply oughts from what is true objectively, because it is true that genocide and harm objectively are negative to humans, we, as humans, ought not to do things which would hurt us.
Ok. Let's suppose that, in the scenario I described, the majority of people would be helped by the genocide of the minority. Why would they be obligated to the minority? Why should the harm or benefit of the minority bother the majority?
To boil it down a little more simply, if we use human benefit or pleasure as the standard, what obligation does anyone have to help others unless it also helps themselves? And if harming others helps them, why should they be obligated to not harm others? In fact, if it helps them to harm others, why couldn't we even say that they are obligated to harm others because it helps them to do so?
-->
@SirAnonymous
Essentially because we live in societies, and that you as a person, are objectively more pleasured by being in and following the rules of that society. Fundamentally - Humans are creatures which strive to thrive as all biological matter does: Therefore the pleasure one takes from fulfilling themselves as social creatures and by reaping the benefits of that society, where actions which would cause them to gain a short amount of pleasure (say a sadistic individual murdering someone) would be outweighed by the long term negative effects. As we are social creatures we need interaction with others to be fulfilled, you would be shunned by the majority of society, you would fall into further anti-social behavior (which is net harmful), etc, etc, this is even worse whenever such things as jails and other things are introduced. Then there are even worse net harms. Thus one ought to act with compassion and empathy.
-->
@Theweakeredge
That seems to work for our society, but it doesn't work for what I'm asking. I'm proposing a society in which genocide is not punished but promoted. Not only that, but the society as a whole would be helped by the genocide of the minority. In that case, why would they be obligated to spare the minority?
-->
@SirAnonymous
That ignores what genocide is, the slaughtering of a mass of people, it would by principle value murder and therefore would give them the justification for murder in general. As I have already explained: Humans are social creatures as objective fact, and murdering for the vast amount of them is inherently psychologically damaging, but for those it isn't it will still cause harm, for example:
-Cause them to spiral further and further into anti-social behavior
-High probability of radically increased violence
-High probability of them hurting each other,
all of these already means that by the other's standards they would be justified in hurting you, which would make valuing the principal negative, but also that the impacts of such behavior would generally create negative effect for you.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Humans are social creatures as objective fact, and murdering for the vast amount of them is inherently psychologically damaging, but for those it isn't it will still cause harm, for example:-Cause them to spiral further and further into anti-social behavior-High probability of radically increased violence-High probability of them hurting each other,
Probably so. However, a psychologically damaged society can still be successful. Sparta (and I think Rome as well, but I'm not as sure about them) did some seriously messed up things to a lot of their infants, but it was a powerful city-state for centuries. There are countless examples of societies that continually perpetrated terrible crimes like slavery, conquest, genocides, other mass slaughters, various forms of bigotry, and nearly anything else you can think of that have still been powerful and successful for long periods of time. So if all those crimes don't seem to make them less successful, what obligation do they have to stop?
The problem I'm trying to get at here is that you're tying moral obligation to human pleasure or welfare. However, that gives individuals and societies obligations only to themselves. If circumstances arise in which they are helped by harming others, then why are they morally obligated to help or at least not harm the others rather than harming others for their own benefit?
-->
@SirAnonymous
To answer your most immediate question: Because fundamentally speaking - they shouldn't be doing something according to only their pleasure, not if that's what they value - because the net benefit one receives from valuing other's pleasures to your own pleasure far outweighs the benefits one receives from only valuing your own pleasure, hence society and law.
To answer your question - we are doing what is most beneficial and logically valid, Sparta might have been existent, but they were not stable nor at their maximum happiness, with regards to my points, they would have lasted far longer if they did value morality as I have postulated, the same goes for all of them, as whenever societies start to do more and more things which violates their principals the closer it gets to collapse.
Take the civil war for example - due to the value people were putting on slavery the union nearly collapsed, and then it survived further because we began the process to value them as people more and more.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because fundamentally speaking - they shouldn't be doing something according to only their pleasure, not if that's what they value - because the net benefit one receives from valuing other's pleasures to your own pleasure far outweighs the benefits one receives from only valuing your own pleasure, hence society and law.
In most cases, yes. However, I'm asking about situations when that isn't the case. When the net benefit from valuing one's own pleasure does outweigh the net benefit of valuing other's pleasure, why should that individual or that society be obligated to value other's pleasure over their own?
To answer your question - we are doing what is most beneficial and logically valid, Sparta might have been existent, but they were not stable nor at their maximum happiness, with regards to my points, they would have lasted far longer if they did value morality as I have postulated, the same goes for all of them, as whenever societies start to do more and more things which violates their principals the closer it gets to collapse.
That's a valid argument (and also the argument I would have made). However, we don't know what brings maximum happiness. Suppose we discover that that the method for achieving maximum happiness and survivability requires doing things that we consider immoral. If that were the case, would we still be obligated not to do those things that we consider immoral?
-->
@SirAnonymous
Both of your counters are based on supposition - neither of which I believe are valid to believe will happen at all, you would have to demonstrate that this would even be an occurrence or the thing where one's individual valuing pleasure would bring about more pleasure than valuing the group or mass. Also, because that fundamentally doesn't work. That will never be the case. Why?
Because if you do something which harms another because it net benefits you, you are giving others the same right if that situation occurs, meaning that they can hurt you. Therefore in the long run, the pleasure received by valuing others will also outweigh what may pleasure you and require hurting others, because you actually are with those others.
The second thing is literally a supposition, because of the philosophic principles I have explained during this conversation it will simply be something that we were incorrect and we would have to change our opinion on it, or something like it would not happen. In order for this supposition to ever hold weight, there would need to be some kind of example to justify the worrying of.
Moral subjectivism = Whatever aligns with my personal sense of aesthetics is moral, unless situationally inconvenient for me.
Should just call it amoralism.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Also, because that fundamentally doesn't work. That will never be the case.
Ah. I was wondering if that was the argument you were making. I don't think it's a sound one, though.
Because if you do something which harms another because it net benefits you, you are giving others the same right if that situation occurs, meaning that they can hurt you.
I see your point here. Reciprocity is a valid principle. However, there are a few problems that could arise.
1. Suppose no one knew what I did. In that case, reciprocity fails because no one knows that they have the right to hurt me.
2. Suppose I'm a masochist who actually enjoys it when people hurt me, so I hurt them because I know it will make them hurt me, which I enjoy.
3. Suppose I have enough power that they can't hurt me, and I can simply enforce my will.
The third case is the most interesting. If a person has enough temporal power that they can harm people without fear of retaliation and don't care about what happens after their death (something along the lines of the Kim dynasty), then they don't have to fear either retaliation, because they are powerful enough to prevent it, or long-term failure, because what happens after they die is of no interest to them. While there are obviously limits - starting a war that could bring down their regime, for instance - such a person would nevertheless have considerable leeway to harm others without bringing any significant harm to themselves.
The second thing is literally a supposition
It was a hypothetical. It wasn't meant to have a lot of weight; it was meant to examine the logic of your ideas rather than their practical application. However, I could give it practical weight. For instance, we might discover that certain forms of eugenics are beneficial to society because they remove people who consume more than they contribute. That could benefit society. Why would that be wrong?
There is also a more fundamental issue with your argument. While people have an incentive to not bring harm upon themselves, that isn't an obligation. It's enough to convince most rational people. But what of irrational people? How do you handle someone who just doesn't care about harm to themselves? Your argument establishes rational incentives to not do this thing we call immoral or to do that thing we call moral. You've shown that it's generally beneficial to act morally. However, rational incentives and moral obligations are not the same thing. You can set up human benefit as harm as the standard, but what's to stop someone from just saying "I don't care" and doing whatever they like? You can't appeal to harm and benefit in that case because that doesn't matter to them.
-->
@Theweakeredge
on a moral basis, do you support people pressing the button that revives their singular most loved one?
-->
@seldiora
There isn't enough clarification, and it is unquantifiable to how some loves people. I don't know enough about it. Maybe?
-->
@Mopac
Also not what I'm arguing, if you don't know what I mean, ask, and I'll happily explain it to you.
-->
@SirAnonymous
1. Suppose no one knew what I did. In that case, reciprocity fails because no one knows that they have the right to hurt me
It is the principal of the claim - you are essentially saying that due to the fact that you can do it - it is justified that others do it, which then follows into my argument. It is logically unjustified then.
2. Suppose I'm a masochist who actually enjoys it when people hurt me, so I hurt them because I know it will make them hurt me, which I enjoy.
Psychologically perhaps, but that does not negate the physical harms of being anti-social such as increased aggression, restless sleep, etc... Nor does it fully rebuke my earlier idea on the harms.
3. Suppose I have enough power that they can't hurt me, and I can simply enforce my will.
Yes but this is based on what is logically justified - all of these could be simple solved with a better standard which is also subjective - but there is no need. There are so many arguments against this - such as: It is still not logically justified - you would still be encouraging others to do the same which would be overall net negative - since you are supposing, allow me to - suppose their is someone powerful enough to hurt you, then you can't. And it is unlikely for you to be powerful enough where people can't hurt you, its unrealistic, and not likely to happen. As well as being logically unjustified.
The third case is the most interesting. If a person has enough temporal power that they can harm people without fear of retaliation and don't care about what happens after their death (something along the lines of the Kim dynasty), then they don't have to fear either retaliation, because they are powerful enough to prevent it, or long-term failure, because what happens after they die is of no interest to them. While there are obviously limits - starting a war that could bring down their regime, for instance - such a person would nevertheless have considerable leeway to harm others without bringing any significant harm to themselves.
Yes, but they are still encouraging harm to themselves, they would be better off in the long run without harm to their goals or practices, if that is the case, a power like that, then people can harm them in more than just physical ways. Temporal power isn't something anyone can have out of the principal of it being logically impossible, but not only that, it is literally still logically unjustified. Literally, no moral system is perfect, and even if I couldn't refute these, they wouldn't fold much weight.
we might discover that certain forms of eugenics are beneficial to society because they remove people who consume more than they contribute. That could benefit society. Why would that be wrong?
Because that would be assuming a thing that we have proven false to be correct, because then it would encourage the way of thinking that we should breed every single athletic person until there are less and less people, thereby doing more than just harm to you, but to the society that benefits you too, which would be even greater harm.
While people have an incentive to not bring harm upon themselves, that isn't an obligation. It's enough to convince most rational people. But what of irrational people? How do you handle someone who just doesn't care about harm to themselves?
They are still wrong to believe it. Regardless this doesn't prove that my moral system is flawed, but that not everybody will follow it, but this is true of literally everything. Does that mean laws are invalid because people won't follow them? Etc, that is true of everything and not a real weight. As for people who do not care about what happens to them, they are also logically incorrect for believing that, as if they follow that train of logic they will die.
Fundamentally speaking, either you have some measure of worth or you literally die. Which is negative towards you and is logically inconsistent, just as people can be morally wrong, that would be morally wrong. To believe yourself of no moral worth. No necessarily that the person is bad but the idea.
but what's to stop someone from just saying "I don't care" and doing whatever they like? You can't appeal to harm and benefit in that case because that doesn't matter to them.
Again this applies to all moral systems. Not something you can stop. Now can we stop this from happening more often? Yes, but that still doesn't make it valid ciriticism, for example: people literally do that whenever they believe objective morality to be true.
-->
@Theweakeredge
It is the principal of the claim - you are essentially saying that due to the fact that you can do it - it is justified that others do it
More like "I can do it, but others don't know that I do it. Thus, they don't know that they're justified in doing it to me, so there are no negative effects for me."
Psychologically perhaps, but that does not negate the physical harms of being anti-social such as increased aggression, restless sleep, etc...
It doesn't negate the physical harms. It turns them into a positive because the masochist enjoys physical harms.
Yes but this is based on what is logically justified - all of these could be simple solved with a better standard which is also subjective - but there is no need.
The tyrant in this case enjoys it. No need is required.
you would still be encouraging others to do the same which would be overall net negative
Except that they can't do it to me, so there's no negative.
suppose their is someone powerful enough to hurt you, then you can't. And it is unlikely for you to be powerful enough where people can't hurt you, its unrealistic, and not likely to happen.Yes, but they are still encouraging harm to themselves, they would be better off in the long run without harm to their goals or practices, if that is the case, a power like that, then people can harm them in more than just physical ways.
There are people more powerful than Kim Jong Un, but he gets away with harming others without any harm coming to him. It is a realistic scenario, although it only applies to a few people.
it is literally still logically unjustified.
The logic doesn't matter to the tyrant in this scenario. They enjoy harming others, and it brings no harm to themselves.
Because that would be assuming a thing that we have proven false to be correct, because then it would encourage the way of thinking that we should breed every single athletic person until there are less and less people, thereby doing more than just harm to you, but to the society that benefits you too, which would be even greater harm.
You seem to be missing the point of the hypothetical. Such situations might be unlikely, and the specific examples I bring up might not work. But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not you system would work in such a scenario.
They are still wrong to believe it.
But they don't care that they're wrong. Your argument here only holds for rational people who are interested in their own benefit. However, there are plenty of irrational people out there.
Regardless this doesn't prove that my moral system is flawed, but that not everybody will follow it, but this is true of literally everything.
Not quite. It is true that there are people who will violate any moral system. However, your particular system ties obligation to net benefit. If someone doesn't care about that, then I don't see how your system gives such a person any obligations. Other systems don't have that particular problem. For instance, in most systems of objective morality, immoral actions are immoral no matter what. In certain forms of nihilism, nothing is morally good or morally bad.
Fundamentally speaking, either you have some measure of worth or you literally die.
That's only an issue if everyone cares about dying. Take a suicide bomber for instance. The bomber actually wants to die. There are no negatives for him when he carries out the bombing.
Again this applies to all moral systems. Not something you can stop. Now can we stop this from happening more often? Yes, but that still doesn't make it valid ciriticism, for example: people literally do that whenever they believe objective morality to be true.
That's not the point I'm making. I know you can't stop people from being immoral. "However, your particular system ties obligation to net benefit. If someone doesn't care about that, then I don't see how your system gives such a person any obligations."
-->
@SirAnonymous
It seems you have the same problem that is just repeated, or at least as I interpret it:
If someone does not care about net positive, then it doesn't give people obligations
It honestly doesn't matter if they care about it or not, an moral obligation is based on an ought. Not what people believe. If your response is then to say that it is subjective and not objective and therefore what authority do you have then, is also not a valid response, as the ought itself is the logical condition. This is true of all moral systems. You are human and you have a basis on which you are harmed or hurt, one should do what maximizes that as a factor of biological truth as well as what is most philosophically true. It's kind of like objecting to a syllogism because there are people who would misinterpret that syllogism, it does not logically follow.