The Tinkerbell Effect.

[Consilius]

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.

[Slave]

As for your question, subjective morality is the only mode of morality that makes sense if you attempt to dissect where and how we derive our morals. All you need as evidence that speaks in favour of moral relativism is a history lesson. There are no objective morals, such as 'killing is wrong', 'rape is wrong', or 'being kind is good' because as history (and arguably biology) shows us, human behaviors within a certain framework are not uniform. We percieve certain behaviors to be desirable or not based on desire fulfillment and risk/reward, both at the personal level and societal level.

I don't think this is about how a moral relavist should theorize a basic code of morality that we can all agree upon. Moral relativism is the only acceptable notion thus far. Game theory fails in explaining our system of morality. Objective morality fails because history. Theistic morality fails because unfalsifiable. Therefore, there are no morals. They cannot be agreed upon either for this very reason.

[genkaus]

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.

[Foxaèr]

the more people believe something, the more true it becomes.

It may become more true in their minds, but not in reality.

[Consilius]

So history's monuments to moral relativism (Pope Urban, Stalin) serve to teach us that nothing is wrong if you believe it isn't? Or were they deluded and truly in error?

[genkaus]

So history's monuments to moral relativism (Pope Urban, Stalin) serve to teach us that nothing is wrong if you believe it isn't? Or were they deluded and truly in error?

Neither.

[Esquilax]

So history's monuments to moral relativism (Pope Urban, Stalin) serve to teach us that nothing is wrong if you believe it isn't? Or were they deluded and truly in error?

The point is that it's more complex than a binary right/wrong system. It's a matter of evaluating the entirety of the situation; murder is wrong because it harms people and allowing it to happen has a direct harmful influence on human society, and can thus be seen as objectively wrong. However, there are times where we allow it to some degree, like self defense, sometimes even capital punishment (though that's a complex issue.)

It's a complicated continuum of costs, benefits, and a number of other issues, and moral relativism is incorrect merely because it places some acts that are objectively harmful to a degree that they should be stopped into a category where they're sometimes acceptable. You can be as relativist as you like, but you're still bound to a physical universe that has truths one can state about it, and therefore has actions that are objectionable.

[Slave]

You can be as relativist as you like, but you're still bound to a physical universe that has truths one can state about it, and therefore has actions that are objectionable.

I'm interested to hear what these objective morals are in this context. Could you elaborate further?

[Whateverist]

So history's monuments to moral relativism (Pope Urban, Stalin) serve to teach us that nothing is wrong if you believe it isn't? Or were they deluded and truly in error?

I would say they did what they did for the sake of expedience in achieving ends which most (all?) of us would say were reprehensible. If they offered justifications after the fact, they were merely spinning for political acceptance. Not everything one does is motivated by moral insight, far from it.

As Genkaus already said, to say morality is subjective is not to say it is up for negotiation. What feels right morally is something we discover, not something we construct. Every attempt to concretize a set of morals will be fraught with situational enigmas, but that's okay. Our attempts to summarize morality is a separate enterprise from applying morality in day to day life, and it is only the latter that truly matters.

[Simon Moon]

So history's monuments to moral relativism (Pope Urban, Stalin) serve to teach us that nothing is wrong if you believe it isn't? Or were they deluded and truly in error?

Not so.

Humans all inhabit the same physical universe, and thus are all subject to the same physical laws. If something is inhumane if it were to happen to me, the chances that if it happened to you or any other human, it would also be inhumane.

In general, life is preferable to death, comfort is preferable to pain, freedom is preferable to slavery, health is preferable to disease, etc.

I am able to judge what actions are immoral because of how they effect the well being of other human beings.