Subjective Morality?

[vulcanlogician]

This view, that rightness exists out there independent of subjective agency, and that some people correctly perceive it, and some do not, is quite dangerous, actually. It's easy when you're in a culture with certain views to say, "Oh. . . well everyone KNOWS that's morally acceptable.  Everyone KNOWS that's objectively wrong."  But what if everyone KNOWS that women are morally inferior to men, and that this is considered an objective truth?  What if almost every white person considers the savagery of black people an objective moral truth?  What if everyone in a subculture KNOWS that human beings are a scourge to the world, and that the complete elimination of the species represents a tremendous good?

Absolutist knowledge of any type can be dangerous. But you seem to be referring to dogma, not facts. After all, some people KNOW that their God is the ruler of the universe. The thing about that is, we can argue against such notions. We can posit that they are wrong... and wrong in an OBJECTIVE sense. Their feelings (however strong they may be) have no bearing on whether God really exists or not. And we can argue as much, despite the fact that we cannot scientifically demonstrate God's nonexistence.

Likewise, people can be WRONG about moral facts. But if they are open to reasoned debate on the matter, we can attempt to show those who endorse savagery toward blacks that they are wrong.

Note that we 1) can use logic and reason to debate the issue and 2) we can make the case that (whatever a person's feelings are toward black people) it is wrong to behave in an interpersonally destructive way towards them. After all, I'm not fond at all of Christian fundamentalists who preach hate against homosexuals--but I am also aware that it would be immoral for me to physically hurt one of them. (Trust me though, if it were possible for me to reach inside a YouTube video and slap another person, I'd have done it on certain occasions. But that would have been a moral transgression on my part.)

Since we can deem feelings irrelevant to a debate moral debate, we can say (at the very least) that our moral conceptions are divorable from our emotional misgivings. Something to think about. Of course, feelings are sometimes involved in a debate about objective facts ("You atheists deny God because you are hateful sinners!" for example), but that doesn't make such debates nonobjective.

I posted this in another thread for Jorm to read. It's a quick and easy read (20-ish minutes tops). It doesn't address emotivism, but it does make a pretty sound logical case that morality has nothing to do with cultural mores.




@Jörmungandr: Did you ever read, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism"? I'm curious what your impressions are if you did.