Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

My big toe exists, too,

Awesome, great, and it's facts like that to which a moral realist refers when determining what is right or wrong.  

but until you can establish some reason for doing so, I'm not going to call it an objective moral fact.

I'm only telling you that these are the sorts of facts that -my- moral facts are constituted of.  You can call them whatever you want.  

If for some reason you get excited about my big toe, and develop real feelings about what should be done about it, I can see that you might possibly come up with some objective fact about my big toe to support your view on your "ought" idea.

Well that's that, then.  The kinds of facts to which I would refer are capable of supporting my "ought" ideas. When I tell you that you ought not do this bad thing..I can explain why by reference to a mind independent fact of the matter. Which is a moral matter. But...for whatever reason, we're not calling a moral fact, today.

Tada, you've just agreed with moral realism.

[Angrboda]

Is a waterfall an objectively artistic waterfall if someone has decided to consider it artistically?  I wouldn't say so, though some artists would likely try to argue so.  But this is because they cannot conceive of a world view in which their subjective evaluation is not shared by everyone else.  They therefore consider it objective.  Much the same as the existence of witches, of God, of the superiority of the White Man, of the moral superiority of women, of the centrism of the Earth, and a million other wrong ideas have been considered objectively true because of systemic ignorance.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of many that feel that art has some objective basis, certainly not all. It seems little more than a straw man you pulled out of your ass so that you could beg the question. Regardless, the question is why you would say that there is nothing objectively artistic about say, a waterfall. Your simply giving us your opinion is fine as far as it goes, but you have given us nothing but in this thread. What are your reasons for believing, not that morals aren't objective, but that morals cannot refer to some objective fact. I've given you the analogous case of numbers, and other than a clumsy attempt at a nominalist defense, you've avoided that subject as well.

[bennyboy]

Tada, you've just agreed with moral realism.

Tada, no I haven't. Moral realism depends on moral facts and values which are independent of personal feelings or ideas. I do not agree with that position, and hold the opposite position: that there ARE no moral facts or values which are independent of personal feelings or ideas.

---

I don't think that's a fair characterization of many that feel that art has some objective basis, certainly not all.  It seems little more than a straw man you pulled out of your ass so that you could beg the question.  Regardless, the question is why you would say that there is nothing objectively artistic about say, a waterfall.  Your simply giving us your opinion is fine as far as it goes, but you have given us nothing but in this thread.  What are your reasons for believing, not that morals aren't objective, but that morals cannot refer to some objective fact.  I've given you the analogous case of numbers, and other than a clumsy attempt at a nominalist defense, you've avoided that subject as well.

I didn't say that art has no objective basis. I said that objects of artistic admiration are not themselves intrinsically artistic. Just as objects of moral thought are not intrinsically moral.

They are subjectively artistic, because a subjective agent looks at them, and has some kind of emotional response to them.

As for your question: ". . . why you would say that there is nothing objectively artistic about say, a waterfall." It's because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's a subjective evaluation. Absent an evaluator, there can be no evaluation-- just a bunch of wave functions superimposed on the fabric of space-time.

You could do the same thing that's been done with morality in this thread-- make an arbitrary evaluation, and then point to objective measurements of it. If you are confident that anything derived from the Golden Ratio must have artistic value, for example, then you can snoop around for things derived from the Golden Ratio and marvel at how much art the world has created-- how much of the world is objectively beautiful! But, as with morality, you'll still have that meta-question: WHY should things be evaluated by that particular metric?

It's pretty simple to stand where I'm standing. All you have to do is ask "why?" Why ought one accept your particular oughts? If these are really objective mores, then one would simply need to point them out; but this is not, in fact, the case.

As for numbers-- I can point out numbers, and define them unambiguously: "Take away your pinkie and your thumb. . . that's three. Whenever you have the same number of something as this number of fingers, say 'three.'" And you can know that throughout history and cultures, little kids are growing up learning that this many fingers is called (whatever three is called in their language). Not so with morals.

[The Grand Nudger]

Tada, you've just agreed with moral realism.

Tada, no I haven't.  Moral realism depends on moral facts and values which are independent of personal feelings or ideas.  I do not agree with that position, and hold the opposite position: that there ARE no moral facts or values which are independent of personal  feelings or ideas.

Is the existence of your toe mind dependent?  If my moral facts refer to your toe, in what way are -they- mind dependent?  

All of a moral realists facts will be like toe facts.  That's what they're telling you, by telling you that they are moral realists.  If toe facts can be independent of personal feelings and ideas, then it's unclear why moral facts couldn't also be, and even more unclear when those moral facts -are- facts about toes. Like the facts of what would happen to you if I cut one off.

You simply can't agree that there are mind independent facts which can support my ought positions and then maintain that you object to moral realism...because that very literally -is- the position of moral realism. That there are mind indepent facts, like facts about your toes, which constitute our moral beliefs, which are sometimes true, and an expression of our cognitive faculties.

(that's running back -up- the flowchart, to the bottom)

Now, I see it again up above..but this time to Jorg.... I've tried to steer you to it before, but what you're trying to express an objection to is not a moral fact (or moral facts). You have an issue with evaluative premises. That's fine as far as it goes, and all oughts require at least one evaluative premise... but the specific contention you've raised is that they are arbitrary. I don't think that they are, and certainly no more arbitrary...at worst...than facts about your toes and what would happen to you if I cut one off. I think that those things are valid and relevant evaluative metrics or premises by which to judge whether it would be good or bad to cut off one of your toes.

How about you?

[bennyboy]

The issue is simple. Are the MORALS THEMSELVES, the specific moral ideas, represented in the objective world beyond the subjective agent, in things or their properties? That's it. Is there something about any object or situation which represents a right or a wrong, without the evaluation of that agent?

I've literally never argued that there aren't mind independent facts which support ought positions, because I was never talking about that. I've always, from the start, been talking about where those ought positions originally come from. Why are there ought positions at all, rather than a lack of them?

I'll leave with a repeat of an earlier comment. By your goofy comments, the following is true:
-The smell of shit is a "beauty fact" if somebody finds shit beautiful.
-The sound of a screaming girl is a "happiness fact" if a murderer enjoys what he does.
-The Universe is a collection of "religious facts" if someone holds God as real.

Unless you find shit beautiful, or murder enjoyable, or hold God as real, then those objects and states are not "beauty facts," "happiness facts" or "religious facts." This is because those things are simple facts, and the evaluations are IN YOU, not in them.

Unless you can actually demonstrate that any physical object, state, or situation can only sensibly be morally viewed in one way, then I'm just going to say-- I understand your words, and I (subjectively mind you), have found them nigh on worthless. Good luck with that.

[Angrboda]

The issue is simple.  Are the MORALS THEMSELVES, the specific moral ideas, represented in the objective world beyond the subjective agent, in things or their properties?  That's it.  Is there something about any object or situation which represents a right or a wrong, without the evaluation of that agent?

Nobody knows for sure, including you.

[The Grand Nudger]

The issue is simple.  Are the MORALS THEMSELVES, the specific moral ideas, represented in the objective world beyond the subjective agent, in things or their properties?  That's it.  Is there something about any object or situation which represents a right or a wrong, without the evaluation of that agent?

I think that they are..but hey, maybe...there's no such thing as "the world"..?

I've literally never argued that there aren't mind independent facts which support ought positions, because I was never talking about that.  I've always, from the start, been talking about where those ought positions originally come from.  Why are there ought positions at all, rather than a lack of them?

Then you've literally never argued against moral realism, so why do you think that you have?

[bennyboy]

The issue is simple.  Are the MORALS THEMSELVES, the specific moral ideas, represented in the objective world beyond the subjective agent, in things or their properties?  That's it.  Is there something about any object or situation which represents a right or a wrong, without the evaluation of that agent?

I think that they are..but hey, maybe...there's no such thing as "the world"..?

I've literally never argued that there aren't mind independent facts which support ought positions, because I was never talking about that.  I've always, from the start, been talking about where those ought positions originally come from.  Why are there ought positions at all, rather than a lack of them?

Then you've literally never argued against moral realism, so why do you think that you have?

Why do I think that I'm not arguing your straw man?  How you keep telling me what position I do / don't hold, and then tell me I don't really hold / not hold it?

My position was stated clearly enough immediately upon entering the thread.  Morality is a mediation among feelings, ideas, and environment, but it is predicated mainly on feeling. If that's an argument against moral realism, then I'm arguing against moral realism. If it's not, then I'm not.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's -not- an argument against moral realism, it's an argument -for- moral realism, lol....?

There's no further arguing, you're done.  You've agreed to moral realism, and that's that.  

What you need to figure out now, is why you thought (and still think) that you didn't agree with moral realism.

[bennyboy]

It's -not- an argument against moral realism, it's an argument -for- moral realism, lol....?

There's no further arguing, you're done.  You've agreed to moral realism, and that's that.  

What you need to figure out now, is why you thought (and still think) that you didn't agree with moral realism.

You are like the chick that wears a low-cut blouse without a bra, and shouts "Stop staring at my tits."

I've given my position, and it's very clearly an argument for subjective morality, since it predicates morality on feelings.  You can talk around it all you want, but unless you can demonstrate any objective truth that necessitates a particular ought with no subjective evaluation required, then move along.  Stop trying to make this thread about your tits.