Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd add that not only is that not a good example to object to moral realism with, moral realism can produce clarity otherwise lacking in it.

It may not be the case that stealing bread "turns moral" when it's for a starving child, even if we allow it as morally permissible.  Exclusively sub optimal courses of action or outcomes -moral dilemma- is exactly the sort of thing an objective morality can solve..that a subjective morality simply cannot.  There is no such thing as resolving a floating difference of opinion.

So, faced with nothing but shit ways forward in the situation set up, we might pick the one that causes the least damage.  If we starve a kid, they die.  If we steal a loaf of bread...someone will be deprived of a loaf of bread.  The "lesser of two evils" bit is only cogent if one of those evils actually is lesser.

A moral realist can continue, if it happens to be the case that both evils are equal (say, you're stealing the bread from a person in the same starving kid situation), and if both evils are profound...a persons moral agency is compromised. They are wholly in the wrong, they may know it or they may not...but we understand why they did what they did and it may be that they could do no other thing...our notions of what they deserve on account of it are modified.

Stealing a loaf of bread - immoral.
Stealing a loaf of bread for a starving child - morally permissible
Stealing a loaf of bread for a starving child from a starving child - immoral.

I'm interested to see whether or not that describes anyone's moral intuitions better than a simple moral/not moral..and additionally whether something like that - which does possess an objective justification..is taken by some to be a demonstration or moral subjectivity or relativity?

[robvalue]

[Dr H]

It's an oxymoron.

Actually, it's an identity.

[bennyboy]

There was a notable moment in the W. Lane Craig / Hitchens debate when the latter observed that the former had dropped his usual favourite adjective in favour of a new one... 'absolute' was out and 'objective' was in.

If even christian apologists have dropped the idea of 'absolute morality', that's progress.

I thought this WLC article might be interesting for some.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings...al-values/

Full text, and it's interesting me to read the strong implication that he's guiding another Christian in how to present certain ideas to non-Christians (i.e. he's considering his difficulties in his own debates):

A
Thanks for your work with Reasonable Faith, Joshua! I hope your local chapter flourishes!
The reason I think it preferable to talk about objective moral values and duties rather than absolute moral values and duties can best be seen by considering their opposites. The opposite of “objective” is “subjective.” The opposite of “absolute” is “relative.” Now very little reflection is needed to see that “relative” does not mean “subjective.” Just because one’s moral duties are relative to one’s circumstances doesn’t in any way imply that they are subjective, that there is not an objectively right or wrong thing to do in such a situation. So the distinction objective/subjective is not the same as absolute/relative.
“Absolute” means “regardless of the circumstances.” “Relative” means “varying with the circumstances.” We can agree, for example, that it is not absolutely wrong to kill another person. In some circumstances killing another person may be morally justified and even obligatory. To affirm that one’s moral duty varies with the circumstances is not to say that we have no objective moral duties to fulfill.
“Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective” means “just a matter of personal opinion.” If we do have objective moral duties, then in the various circumstances in which we find ourselves we are obligated or forbidden to do various actions, regardless of what we think.
Similarly, I trust you can see that the issue is not universality either. Universality does not imply objectivity. Universality of a moral code could just be evidence of unanimity of opinion (maybe ingrained into us by evolution). By the same token objectivity doesn’t imply universality either. In certain times and places some action (e.g., dressing in a certain way) may be objectively wrong and in other times and places morally permissible.
Drawing these distinctions carefully is vital to the moral argument because the claim that “Absolute moral values and duties exist” will quite properly arouse more opposition than the claim that “Objective moral values and duties exist.” People will take you to be saying that certain things are always right or always wrong, regardless of the circumstances, which you are most definitely not affirming. The point is that if God exists, there are objective moral values and we have objective moral duties to fulfill in whatever circumstances we find ourselves. But the objectivity of those values and duties doesn’t imply that they do not vary with the circumstances. They are objective, whether or not they are also absolute and universal.
Keeping these distinctions straight will avoid a host of confusions!

I should also like to point out that his site is a Q&A site, and he answers very many questions that look a lot like our objections to Christianity: whether God is unfair, issues with the POE, issues about free will, crime, and "heaven" and so on.

[brewer]

I keep hearing are that morals are conditional ( even if called objective). Sorry, having conditions attached makes them subjective. 

I looked for a list of objective morals and could find none. Seems christians are about as inclined to give a list as they are to define god.

[bennyboy]

I have to be honest at this point-- I really don't understand what an objective moral might even be. It seems that any kind of objectivity or realism is just the imposition of outside influences on my actions. . . but an imposition based on OTHER people's subjective feelings and ideas about the way the world should be or how people should act.

Can someone give a super-simple example of objective morality, not buried under semantics or rhetoric?

[Whateverist]

I just saw this post by outtathereligioncloset on an intro thread.  I thought it might apply here.

Unless one can vouchsafe for oneself that what you do is moral, it having been anointed as the objective moral truth really isn't sufficient.

[Belacqua]

I just saw this post by outtathereligioncloset on an intro thread.  I thought it might apply here.

Unless one can vouchsafe for oneself that what you do is moral, it having been anointed as the objective moral truth really isn't sufficient.

It's a clever slogan. But it's foolish slander.

---

Can someone give a super-simple example of objective morality, not buried under semantics or rhetoric?

Ethical axioms are unprovable but self-evident, like those in math. Objective morality is when we apply those axioms in a disinterested and unselfish way.

Axiom: flourishing of living things is good.

Application: chopping the arms off of healthy babies for fun is bad.

[DLJ]

There was a notable moment in the W. Lane Craig / Hitchens debate when the latter observed that the former had dropped his usual favourite adjective in favour of a new one... 'absolute' was out and 'objective' was in.

If even christian apologists have dropped the idea of 'absolute morality', that's progress.

I thought this WLC article might be interesting for some.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings...al-values/

Full text, and it's interesting me to read the strong implication that he's guiding another Christian in how to present certain ideas to non-Christians (i.e. he's considering his difficulties in his own debates):

A
Thanks for your work with Reasonable Faith, Joshua! I hope your local chapter flourishes!
The reason I think it preferable to talk about objective moral values and duties rather than absolute moral values and duties can best be seen by considering their opposites. The opposite of “objective” is “subjective.” The opposite of “absolute” is “relative.” Now very little reflection is needed to see that “relative” does not mean “subjective.” Just because one’s moral duties are relative to one’s circumstances doesn’t in any way imply that they are subjective, that there is not an objectively right or wrong thing to do in such a situation. So the distinction objective/subjective is not the same as absolute/relative.
“Absolute” means “regardless of the circumstances.” “Relative” means “varying with the circumstances.” We can agree, for example, that it is not absolutely wrong to kill another person. In some circumstances killing another person may be morally justified and even obligatory. To affirm that one’s moral duty varies with the circumstances is not to say that we have no objective moral duties to fulfill.
“Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective” means “just a matter of personal opinion.” If we do have objective moral duties, then in the various circumstances in which we find ourselves we are obligated or forbidden to do various actions, regardless of what we think.
Similarly, I trust you can see that the issue is not universality either. Universality does not imply objectivity. Universality of a moral code could just be evidence of unanimity of opinion (maybe ingrained into us by evolution). By the same token objectivity doesn’t imply universality either. In certain times and places some action (e.g., dressing in a certain way) may be objectively wrong and in other times and places morally permissible.
Drawing these distinctions carefully is vital to the moral argument because the claim that “Absolute moral values and duties exist” will quite properly arouse more opposition than the claim that “Objective moral values and duties exist.” People will take you to be saying that certain things are always right or always wrong, regardless of the circumstances, which you are most definitely not affirming. The point is that if God exists, there are objective moral values and we have objective moral duties to fulfill in whatever circumstances we find ourselves. But the objectivity of those values and duties doesn’t imply that they do not vary with the circumstances. They are objective, whether or not they are also absolute and universal.
Keeping these distinctions straight will avoid a host of confusions!

I should also like to point out that his site is a Q&A site, and he answers very many questions that look a lot like our objections to Christianity: whether God is unfair, issues with the POE, issues about free will, crime, and "heaven" and so on.

Yes, thanks for that. Good to see the background regarding WLC's position.

His definition of 'objective' is an acceptable one (unless you are Belaqua) but not the only one (i.e. of the object/goal/unbiased/independent/measurable against a scale or axiom).

His definition of 'subjective' lacks appropriate nuance (i.e. competence vs. comprehension).

But at least we know what he means.

Cheers.

[Belacqua]

(unless you are Belaqua)

Hey, it's OK with me. As long as he's clear about it.
It's not like word definitions are universal and eternal... what's the word for that?