Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 10:58 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Metaethical subjective relativism
#11
RE: Metaethical subjective relativism
(July 28, 2015 at 8:09 am)bennyboy Wrote: Let me ask you a question.  As a mental agent, would one's DNA and the instinctive behaviors beyond the control of conscious awareness be considered part of the mechanism of the subjective agent, or part of the objective environment?  Since I have no control over those things, I would consider them objective to my subjective agency, even though other people seem them as part and parcel.

Well, the order of base pairs in your DNA is probably not a property of your mind, since we can ascertain them even if you die and no longer have a mind.

I don't know that conscious awareness "controls" anything, so I don't know what is or is not beyond that boundary.

I'm not really sure where you're going here. 'm not really going for a deep understanding of consciousness here; I mean the ordinary commonsense understandings of properties of minds per se, and relations of minds to objective physical reality.
Reply
#12
RE: Metaethical subjective relativism
(July 28, 2015 at 2:19 pm)The Barefoot Bum Wrote:
(July 28, 2015 at 8:09 am)bennyboy Wrote: Let me ask you a question.  As a mental agent, would one's DNA and the instinctive behaviors beyond the control of conscious awareness be considered part of the mechanism of the subjective agent, or part of the objective environment?  Since I have no control over those things, I would consider them objective to my subjective agency, even though other people seem them as part and parcel.

Well, the order of base pairs in your DNA is probably not a property of your mind, since we can ascertain them even if you die and no longer have a mind.

I don't know that conscious awareness "controls" anything, so I don't know what is or is not beyond that boundary.

I'm not really sure where you're going here. 'm not really going for a deep understanding of consciousness here; I mean the ordinary commonsense understandings of properties of minds per se, and relations of minds to objective physical reality.
How do you differentiate from some mental experiences, which are "externally" sourced, like looking at a rock, and others, which are "internally" sourced, like an instinctive response to a bear?  Why is one subjective and one objective, if the subjective agent has no control (or even the illusion of control) over the experiencing of either?

Not all brain processes, I'd argue, are from or of the conscious agent, and they are therefore external to it, even though physically they are processed in the same brain.  If this is not the case, and you include those processes which are not experienced by the subjective agent cotemporaneously with the processes, then you are already treating the entire subjective agency as an illusory projection of an objective agent, which is a whole new ballpark: it's now an objective philosophy in a subjectivist's clothing.

In short, what I'm going for is to find out whether you consider those brain processes which are not experienced directly as part of the subjective agent, or whether they may be considered part of the objective environment.
Reply
#13
RE: Metaethical subjective relativism
(July 28, 2015 at 7:54 am)The Barefoot Bum Wrote: So, for example, without the subjective feeling of being pulled towards the center of the Earth, we would have no theory of gravity, but our theory of gravity includes this thing, the Earth, which is outside our mind, and which pulls us toward it, irrespective of our subjective state.

This is 'woo' worthy. Seriously. Nobody has or had had a feeling of being pulled towards the center of the Earth. Despite Newton's brilliance, we still don't have the 'subjective' feeling you give as cause to his insight. Despite what's actually going on (thanks to Newton and Einstein), my subjective 'feeling' towards the center of the Earth hasn't changed since my earliest memory.

The biggest problem with your theory is the attempt to disassociate ethics with action. The only motivation I can dream of is a desire to create thought crime.

I lied. The actual biggest problem with your theory is your inability to communicate. Someone that wants feedback and conversation doesn't sequester themselves behind philosophically technical terms.
Reply
#14
RE: Metaethical subjective relativism
(July 28, 2015 at 10:26 pm)Cato Wrote:


Did I piss in your cornflakes? Borrow your car and return it with no gas?

I'd try to address your points, but it looks like you've completely nuked any sense of good will, a strategy better suited to exclusion than persuasion. Which is, of course, your prerogative; I have no illusion that have any right to be here. Given your status, I will take the hint and depart.
Reply
#15
RE: Metaethical subjective relativism
(July 29, 2015 at 4:38 am)The Barefoot Bum Wrote:
(July 28, 2015 at 10:26 pm)Cato Wrote:


Did I piss in your cornflakes? Borrow your car and return it with no gas?

I'd try to address your points, but it looks like you've completely nuked any sense of good will, a strategy better suited to exclusion than persuasion. Which is, of course, your prerogative; I have no illusion that have any right to be here. Given your status, I will take the hint and depart.

But isn't that your subjective feeling or are you appealing to an objective standard of good will in which Cato is in violation?
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
Reply
#16
RE: Metaethical subjective relativism
(July 27, 2015 at 3:04 pm)The Barefoot Bum Wrote: Briefly, metaethical subjective relativism (MESR) is the position that statements about ethics are true or false only relative to the subjective, i.e. the properties of minds, either the mind of an individual or statistical properties of the minds of a group of individuals. In other words, it is a category error to ascribe the properties "good" and "bad" directly or inherently to actions, events, or states of affairs (in the same sense that mass and size are intrinsic properties of the Earth); instead, "good" and "bad" coherently refer only to the relation of minds to actions, etc.

Note that MESR is not the idea (sometimes called ethical subjectivism or intuitionism) that properties of minds create, determine, or provide an epistemic basis for believing that actions, etc. intrinsically have ethical properties. MESR is instead the idea that our linguistic habit of using the predicate copula (X is good/bad) to relate properties to actions, etc. (e.g. killing people is bad) is at best a metaphor, and at worst an error.

The basic argument is first that subjective relativism is positively demonstrable: people with minds do in fact have ethical relationships to actions, etc.: we approve and disapprove of certain actions and states of affairs. Second, to go beyond subjective relativism requires an epistemic system that either begs the questions, i.e. assumes as premises what is at issue, or fails to find a scientific evidentiary basis. Essentially, statements of the form (X is good/bad) meant literally are unfalsifiable.

This opening is obviously considerably oversimplified. I am happy to clarify and expand on my position on request, and you can visit my eponymous blog and click on the obvious tag to read my writing on this subject in more detail.
I'm looking at the argument you present here; it's true that knowledge or sentiments of "good" and "bad" only exist in the minds of individuals who ascribe these qualities to certain actions and events, but that doesn't demonstrate that statements about the "good" and the "bad" are devoid of content that is objectively true or false. Have you not, to the contrary, simply begged the question yourself?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What is the metaethical meaning of 'should'? Disagreeable 1 358 February 26, 2022 at 7:48 am
Last Post: Ahriman
  Subjective Morality? mfigurski80 450 34899 January 13, 2019 at 8:40 am
Last Post: Acrobat
  Subjective Issues Azu 13 2354 September 26, 2017 at 10:07 am
Last Post: Astonished
  Is morality objective or subjective? SuperSentient 50 11219 May 18, 2017 at 6:04 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  On the consistent use of "objective" and "subjective" Ignorant 22 4274 November 15, 2016 at 12:01 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Objective vs. Subjective morality: what's the diff? bennyboy 8 2145 March 27, 2016 at 3:56 am
Last Post: robvalue
  If morality is subjective... Dystopia 25 3695 February 14, 2015 at 3:33 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Is art subjective? LivingNumbers6.626 34 6308 August 17, 2014 at 1:29 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Objective vs Subjective Morals FallentoReason 36 8958 May 5, 2014 at 11:58 am
Last Post: MindForgedManacle
  Knowledge of Qualia or Subjective States Whateverist 5 2753 May 10, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Last Post: Ryantology



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)