Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Let me add that science isn’t about right versus wrong. It’s not binary like that; it’s logical system that behave that way. In science we are looking to model apparent truths about reality as closely as possible. Our model works, if it works. It’s circular pragmatism in that regard. We can talk about how well it works, of course, and if it could be improved.

Perhaps morality is also a circular pragmatism in that regard.  Does this make you skeptical of scientific facts?  

It may be that the thing we're modelling works nothing like we think, but our models still work "as if" it works that way, and that’s all we can ever do. (That’s my pragmatic "as if" rule I’ll be mentioning in our thread more later )

If things were different things would be different, for sure.

I behave in the way in which I think best serves my goals; in the case of morality, I try to behave in the ways I consider to achieve "good" outcomes. Am I correct? Well, experience shows me that I appear to be correct, as far as I can fathom. I could always be completely missing the mark, and somehow my actions are causing really bad outcomes in ways I can’t possible know about. There’s nothing I can do about that. If I’m somehow "bad" through some strange inherent measuring device, I don’t care, unless someone explains what that actually means.

---

PS: again, I don’t understand the question of whether realism "is true". Of course it is, with respect to whatever definitions you want to use.  Internally consistent systems can be set up. Can you make statements which somehow transcend any morality or ethics anyone could ever have? No, you can’t. So again, I don’t see the point of the question. It’s logically settled as far as I can see.

That should be your canary in the mine moment.  You're certain that some issue is logically settled..but simultaneously unsure of what that issue is. 

Realism is not the claim that internally consistent definitions (and pursuant truth claims) can be generated by a mind. Yes, that's contained within moral realism, but so are many things..including much of what constitutes contemporary subjectivism.

---

So when faced with the "cognitivist or non-cognitivist" question, I can only reply... "please explain to me why I should care?"

Cognitivism is not a position on whether or why you should care.  It's just a question about whether you believe that our propositions express states of belief.  

Could I explain why you should care...yes.

Do you care..in a word, yes.

.......but neither of those things have any effect on whether or not you hold to a cognitivist description, or whether that description is accurate.

A moral realist, is a person who thinks that our propositions do express states of belief, who thinks that those beliefs can sometimes be true, and that those beliefs are constituted by something other than human opinion. That's it, that's all. The sort of subjectivism we see on the boards, most often, only disagrees on the last question.