Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[The Grand Nudger]

...
Despite the broadly held perception that it does, ethics has nothing to do with subjectivity, cultural or otherwise.
...

Incorrect.

From Wikipedia:

Subjectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to consciousness, agency, personhood, reality, and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Three common definitions include that subjectivity is the quality or condition of:

1. Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.
2. Something being a subject, broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).
3. Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects.

In ethics, "consciousness, agency, personhood, reality, and truth" are assumed even though they are arguably emergent/virtual/illusory/relational/axiomatic.

I should not speak for Rob but I suspect that he would agree with me that 1. and 2. are part of the ethics-equation but 'multi-subject' would be perhaps a more relevant term.

The word 'only' in part 3., makes it irrelevant to ethics.  If that is the position for which you think Rob and I have been arguing ... that would be a misreading.

 Reading three is the only reading relevant to what is actually meant by the term "moral subjectivity", lol.  The other two readings are irrelevant to the contention.  

When ethicists or moral philosophers ask themselves whether some moral statement is meaningfully objective, or meaningfully subjective..that is the question they are asking, and seeking to answer.  If you are not arguing for that, you are mistaken in the notion that you are arguing for moral subjectivity, or against moral objectivity.

Consider three sets of moral statements.

Subjective moral statements, statements that fundamentally -cannot- be true or false. Attempted objective moral statements that are demonstrably false, and attempted objective moral statements that are demonstrably true. Only category one is "subjective morality". Categories two and three...despite one being (purportedly) accurate and the other not..and despite whatever disagreement there might be between them, are the objective candidates.

The vast majority of objections to objective moral theory (as well as affirmations of subjective moral theory) are misunderstandings of the entire field of play. If a person refers to their privately held opinion as the cause of some thing x being right or wrong, they have ruled themselves out as an advocate for a moral fact. If a person refers to some thing contended to be true, independant of their privately held opinion..they are a candidate for advocacy of a moral fact...but they might still be wrong. Only when a person refers to some thing that -is- true, and -is- independent of their privately held opinion..are we dealing with a credible advocate for a moral fact.

[DLJ]

...
The word 'only' in part 3., makes it irrelevant to ethics.  
...

 Reading three is the only reading relevant to what is actually meant by the term "moral subjectivity", lol. 
...

I see what you did there.

But I don't think you see what you did there.



Bolding, mine, to make it more obvious.

[robvalue]

Just throwing out a couple of examples of how consequentialism falls down quickly if overly relied on (as Harris appears to do):

If I run over your dog by accident, is that as immoral as running it over on purpose? The outcomes are the same either way, but I feel most people would say intention matters.

If I spy on you getting changed, or go in your room and read private information (but don’t use it), and no one ever finds out I did it, is that immoral? I haven’t caused any outcomes, so by c-ism it’s a neutral action I assume. Does it suddenly become immoral once discovered? That makes no sense.

This is why any particular moral tool breaks down if not used in a nuanced way. The way most people consider morality to be is just too complex to easily categorise.

[The Grand Nudger]

 Reading three is the only reading relevant to what is actually meant by the term "moral subjectivity", lol. 
...

I see what you did there.

But I don't think you see what you did there.



Bolding, mine, to make it more obvious.

Is there supposed to be a problem?  Ethics is deontology constructed of moral principles.

---

Just throwing out a couple of examples of how consequentialism falls down quickly if overly relied on 

I agree, consequentialist metrics are not a full moral theory. They are, however, amenable to scientific investigation..as are others - and this is what makes them useful to a person who advocates for science having a bigger part to play in the construction of our moral theories or ethical obligations.

Harris and his pregnant initial premises, right?

[Alan V]

Subjectivity is not about "the correct one" it's about a correct one for each individual.

That's relativity, not subjectivity. Subjectivity means morality is inescapably a matter of fallible opinion.

"Subjective morality is the perspective that moral claims don't really have a truth value."
https://www.google.com/search?q=subjecti...e&ie=UTF-8

[DLJ]

Subjectivity is not about "the correct one" it's about a correct one for each individual.

That's relativity, not subjectivity.  Subjectivity means morality is inescapably a matter of fallible opinion.

"Subjective morality is the perspective that moral claims don't really have a truth value."
https://www.google.com/search?q=subjecti...e&ie=UTF-8

It's an ambiguous term as it is used differently by different disciplines in different ways.   I used it above in a general context of being 'of the self' which is relevant to 3a, 3b, 4a, 4c from Merriam-Webster, below (which, I believe, is a US publication which is why they state #1a as being obsolete.  It's not obsolete if you are a subject of QEII):

subjective adjective
sub·jec·tive | \(ˌ)səb-ˈjek-tiv  \
Definition of subjective (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subject: such as
a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness
b : being or relating to a grammatical subject
especially : NOMINATIVE
2 : of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
3a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL — compare OBJECTIVE sense 1b
b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4a(1) : peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL
subjective judgments
(2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
a subjective account of the incident
b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
subjective sensations
c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
a subjective symptom of disease
— compare OBJECTIVE sense 1c
5 : lacking in reality or substance : ILLUSORY

Given that the moral alert/alarm (sense of right or wrong) occurs prior to any analytical processes having the chance to rationalise anything, it must be deeply subjective.  So where in the process does the 'opinion' part happen?

This is why I have been advocating dropping the terms objective and subjective.  In best practices, and particularly in best practices that relate to information systems and processes, having more than one definition for a given term is akin to the original sin.  

I suspect that this is at the root of why filosofers haven't cracked this one yet.  

:nod emoji:

[The Grand Nudger]

Given that the moral alert/alarm (sense of right or wrong) occurs prior to any analytical processes having the chance to rationalise anything, it must be deeply subjective.  So where in the process does the 'opinion' part happen?

As deeply subjective™ as every other thing you observe.  Sure.  Your moral intuition may be as wrong about what it's reporting as your eyes, ears, nose and skin.  All of your observations are deeply subjective™ in this manner.  This is not what moral philosophers are discussing when they discuss objective or subjective moral theories.

It's not that this is an insensible or incoherent use of the term..it's not...but it is a proposition that would be true in the event that morality, not you..the agent..morality... was subjective -or- objective.

So, imagine two worlds. One world in which morality really is objective. The other in which morality really is subjective. In both worlds you are a necessarily subjective agent. In both worlds you are experiencing moral intuitions in the same way. In both worlds it is you, sounding alert or alarm..... often in the absence (or at least conscious absence) of any analytics.

From the point of view of moral realism, your question is very much an apt one. Where does the opinion part happen? From a moral realists pov it is -not- your opinion that makes some x right or wrong (though a person might legitimately believe that), it is some statement of the matter of the relevant facts which does this. We observe what is wrong, we can be mistaken, but we do not ultimately create what is wrong through sheer force of opinion.

[Alan V]

That's relativity, not subjectivity.  Subjectivity means morality is inescapably a matter of fallible opinion.

"Subjective morality is the perspective that moral claims don't really have a truth value."
https://www.google.com/search?q=subjecti...e&ie=UTF-8

It's an ambiguous term as it is used differently by different disciplines in different ways.   I used it above in a general context of being 'of the self' which is relevant to 3a, 3b, 4a, 4c from Merriam-Webster, below (which, I believe, is a US publication which is why they state #1a as being obsolete.  It's not obsolete if you are a subject of QEII):

subjective adjective
sub·jec·tive | \(ˌ)səb-ˈjek-tiv  \
Definition of subjective (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subject: such as
a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness
b : being or relating to a grammatical subject
especially : NOMINATIVE
2 : of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
3a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL — compare OBJECTIVE sense 1b
b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4a(1) : peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL
subjective judgments
(2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
a subjective account of the incident
b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
subjective sensations
c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
a subjective symptom of disease
— compare OBJECTIVE sense 1c
5 : lacking in reality or substance : ILLUSORY

Given that the moral alert/alarm (sense of right or wrong) occurs prior to any analytical processes having the chance to rationalise anything, it must be deeply subjective.  So where in the process does the 'opinion' part happen?

This is why I have been advocating dropping the terms objective and subjective.  In best practices, and particularly in best practices that relate to information systems and processes, having more than one definition for a given term is akin to the original sin.  

I suspect that this is at the root of why filosofers haven't cracked this one yet.  

:nod emoji:

The obvious problem with your critique is that we can make moral judgments about other people without being involved personally ourselves.

[Angrboda]

God. Yet another debate that has devolved into bickering about the meaning of words. When will it ever end?

[DLJ]

...
The obvious problem with your critique is that we can make moral judgments about other people without being involved personally ourselves.

How can we not be involved in our own moral judgement?

God.  Yet another debate that has devolved into bickering about the meaning of words.  When will it ever end?

I don't see bickering and I don't see debate. Semantics, right?