(October 18, 2018 at 7:02 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(October 17, 2018 at 9:25 pm)DLJ Wrote: ...
The word 'only' in part 3., makes it irrelevant to ethics.  
...

 Reading three is the only reading relevant to what is actually meant by the term "moral subjectivity", lol. 
...

I see what you did there.

But I don't think you see what you did there.



Bolding, mine, to make it more obvious.

Just throwing out a couple of examples of how consequentialism falls down quickly if overly relied on (as Harris appears to do):

If I run over your dog by accident, is that as immoral as running it over on purpose? The outcomes are the same either way, but I feel most people would say intention matters.

If I spy on you getting changed, or go in your room and read private information (but don’t use it), and no one ever finds out I did it, is that immoral? I haven’t caused any outcomes, so by c-ism it’s a neutral action I assume. Does it suddenly become immoral once discovered? That makes no sense.

This is why any particular moral tool breaks down if not used in a nuanced way. The way most people consider morality to be is just too complex to easily categorise.

(October 18, 2018 at 7:12 am)DLJ Wrote:

(October 18, 2018 at 7:02 am)Khemikal Wrote:  Reading three is the only reading relevant to what is actually meant by the term "moral subjectivity", lol. 
...

I see what you did there.

But I don't think you see what you did there.



Bolding, mine, to make it more obvious.

Is there supposed to be a problem?  Ethics is deontology constructed of moral principles.

---

(October 18, 2018 at 7:19 am)robvalue Wrote: Just throwing out a couple of examples of how consequentialism falls down quickly if overly relied on 

I agree, consequentialist metrics are not a full moral theory. They are, however, amenable to scientific investigation..as are others - and this is what makes them useful to a person who advocates for science having a bigger part to play in the construction of our moral theories or ethical obligations.

Harris and his pregnant initial premises, right?

(October 18, 2018 at 8:50 am)DLJ Wrote: Given that the moral alert/alarm (sense of right or wrong) occurs prior to any analytical processes having the chance to rationalise anything, it must be deeply subjective.  So where in the process does the 'opinion' part happen?

As deeply subjective™ as every other thing you observe.  Sure.  Your moral intuition may be as wrong about what it's reporting as your eyes, ears, nose and skin.  All of your observations are deeply subjective™ in this manner.  This is not what moral philosophers are discussing when they discuss objective or subjective moral theories.

It's not that this is an insensible or incoherent use of the term..it's not...but it is a proposition that would be true in the event that morality, not you..the agent..morality... was subjective -or- objective.

So, imagine two worlds. One world in which morality really is objective. The other in which morality really is subjective. In both worlds you are a necessarily subjective agent. In both worlds you are experiencing moral intuitions in the same way. In both worlds it is you, sounding alert or alarm..... often in the absence (or at least conscious absence) of any analytics.

From the point of view of moral realism, your question is very much an apt one. Where does the opinion part happen? From a moral realists pov it is -not- your opinion that makes some x right or wrong (though a person might legitimately believe that), it is some statement of the matter of the relevant facts which does this. We observe what is wrong, we can be mistaken, but we do not ultimately create what is wrong through sheer force of opinion.

God. Yet another debate that has devolved into bickering about the meaning of words. When will it ever end?

(October 18, 2018 at 11:06 am)Thoreauvian Wrote: ...
The obvious problem with your critique is that we can make moral judgments about other people without being involved personally ourselves.

How can we not be involved in our own moral judgement?

(October 18, 2018 at 12:25 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: God.  Yet another debate that has devolved into bickering about the meaning of words.  When will it ever end?

I don't see bickering and I don't see debate. Semantics, right?