Subjective Morality?

[robvalue]

Mfig: You seem to have admitted that you cannot get around the is/ought problem in an objective way. There is no way to determine a single correct answer to what you should do, without first defining "should" so that it fits. It’s circular. That’s really all there is to it. That’s what subjective morality is saying. You can only get around this by compromise or by fiat.

Here’s an important point I think is being missed, and may account for what you’re trying to say. Once two people (or two societies) have agreed on a general principle as being the goal of morality (such as the wellbeing of its population) then it can sometimes be possible to identify beliefs or practices held by one that are a hindrance to that principle. Things can be made somewhat scientific/objective in this regard. But if they disagree on what the principles are, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Each side can tell the other their principles are "better", but we're back to the circular is/ought problem there.

Even wellbeing, once agreed, is a hugely vague term and isn’t something that can be measured objectively overall. It’s a mix of lots of different things, and how you weight all of these different aspects is a subject for discussion. In reality, most actions have positive and negative effects on wellbeing, and it’s about considering how to best balance things. How and when do the positives outweigh the negatives? There’s no non-arbitrary objective answer.

I don’t know if you watched my video, but the other glaring problem, even for people who agree on wellbeing as a principle, is nonhuman animals. Most people apply different rules to them (it’s okay to own, breed and kill them if it’s done "humanely") than humans. It’s become so normalised that people don’t even notice this arbitrary/tribal divide. My opinion is that this divide should not be there, and that we should have no right to own animals, any more than owning people. Am I objectively right or wrong? Neither.