Subjective Morality?

[mfigurski80]

We <- You and I, provided that we both operate under objective morality.

Observation of the sun has everything to do with objectivity, however. The sun is objectively there, with an objective state, whether we observe it correctly or not. Likewise, morality, if objective, should be there with it's objective state whether we observe it correctly or not.
It's a metaphor, man.

If the observer is not reliable, that doesn't mean morality is subjective. If I ask a 5 year old to judge the correctness of linear transformations, he will not be reliable. Are linear transformations subjective? Most people say no. Therefore, unreliability of the subject would not be enough to demonstrate that the thing being evaluated is subjective.
Also a metaphor^.

I'm trying to stay as far away from politics as I can, so I hope you don't mind if I don't answer.

My impression is that objective morality is valid (except for is/aught, which plagues subjective morality too) and can be used to make practical decisions within the world, while subjective morality cannot be used to make practical decisions because, if one knows morality to be subjective, the only way to evaluate another's actions is to knowingly impose one's own morality upon them (which starts seeming incredibly like objective morality) without consideration for their own morals. This is commonly held as immoral by both objective and subjective moralists though... so how do you evaluate the world/others/actions with a subjective morality?

Then it's a mixed metaphor and not valid. 

I'm sorry, what exactly if the morality of linear transformations? Another fail. 

Subjective on a sliding scale. For specific issues (i.e. pedophilia) for most is would approach an objective end point. But put one NAMBLA person in the discussion and the objective moral fails. 

Therefore, applying "one's" morality is subjective. I can and do make judgments on human actions as to it's/their morality but I'm only one person. It takes more than one person to make a moral determination in societies. Just because you and I have an opinion on what's moral does not necessarily make it correct or right to impose it upon others. 

Actually I do mind but I'll change the question, what's your position on killing?

Hmm. You'll have to cut me some slack, I can't formally do formal explanations. Here goes:

By describing the sun and it's state, I meant to remind of the inherent nature of objective events. I then argue this same inherent nature of objective events would include some of the traits/inconsistencies you pointed out earlier. Aka, the inconsistencies you describe are not traits of objective morality specifically, but of the idea of an objective thing in general.
By describing the sun specifically, I meant to show that your points were really arguing against the objective existence of a sun as well as objective morality. I do not relate the sun and morality in any way, except by their supposed objectiveness.

Similarly, linear transformations do not relate to objective morality directly. They are, again, pointing at the inherent nature of an objective event, which objective morality would also have should it exist.

What exactly fails here? Could you be more specific?




Are you saying that one NAMBLA (?) person would change the nature of a moral law from objective to subjective, or merely prove that it was never objective to begin with? If the former: that's not how I understand objectivity to work; if the latter, the following questions arise:

If moral laws are split between subjective/objective, do you hold that at least one of the objective laws, upon violation, could not be possibly held up by a violator as immoral itself (and therefore subjective)? If so, cool, if you have any specific examples of such a law, please share. If not, isn't that the same as entirely subjective morality, since you're essentially just waiting for the nutcases to get through everything?

Therefore, applying "one's" morality is subjective. I can and do make judgments on human actions as to it's/their morality but I'm only one person. It takes more than one person to make a moral determination in societies. Just because you and I have an opinion on what's moral does not necessarily make it correct or right to impose it upon others. 

So, just to be clear, you pronounce humans and their actions as either good or not good, independently of what they think about themselves and their actions? And, no matter how hard your moral judgement, you would accept the crowd's moral legislation instead?
Would you be comfortable to act on a conviction made by yourself? By the crowd?



My position on killing: moral under certain circumstances and certain mindset, immoral under most. 


@bennyboy

We're a social species. We DO evaluate morality differently from individual to individual, but there is also a general understanding of the moral views of the society at large. People, growing up in the society, generally adopt its values. If their own feelings about things are sufficiently at odds with the societal norms, then they may question them, either themselves or in a public attempt to sway ideas.

Yes, but this doesn't really support a subjective morality -- change in moral interpretation can happen under objective morality as well.
In fact, the very idea that people argue over morals -- you mentioned the gay transformation --  suggest that they think it meaningful to argue over such morals, aka, that people recognize their own morality as better than another and are capable of transmitting that to people who don't yet hold that morality. How? Shouldn't a moral interpretation be self sufficient, if subjective? Why would anyone change their morals?