(July 26, 2013 at 6:29 am)Consilius Wrote: For those of you not familiar, the Tinkerbell Effect, named after the revival of the fairy Tinkerbell from Peter Pan, states that, in some cases, the more people believe something, the more true it becomes.
Could this be the case with subjective morality? (And objective too, but I'm working to an end.)
If we all believe that nothing is inherently right or wrong, but is up to negotiation, wouldn't that make it so?
Although tempted to debate the societal implications of subjective morality, that's not my point. My question to moral relativists is this:
"Is subjective morality factual or just your outlook on the universe?"
I'm not pinning anyone down or poking holes in their views, but this is something that we can all think about. It suggests that we could be trapped in a sort of Matrix and our perceived realities could be our own construction.
I'm looking forward to your answers. Pick a pill.
First of all, not being inherently right or wrong is not the same thing as being up for negotiation. So, to that extent, your understanding of subjective morality is incorrect.
Morality is a conceptual system that applies mental attributes to human actions. The quality of being good/bad/right/wrong is not intrinsic to the action itself, but originates in the human mind as an evaluation of that action.
So, to answer your question, the Tinkerbell Effect does apply here. If I believed that the content of my evaluation is determined on the basis of my (or someone else's) subjective needs or desires, then naturally, my moral evaluation would be subjective in nature. And if everyone believed that, it'd make all moralities subjective.
And, by the way, we did not construct our own realities in the matrix - the architect did that.
