Moral Oughts

[The Grand Nudger]

For your questions to me, before and after. Whenever I find myself in a difficult scenario with moral import, I try to scrutinize my intended course of action before the fact, and after the fact.

Other times I just blow right through those situations knowingly or unknowingly and have to reasses my actions after the fact.

I think grand pointed something important our. All of our personal motivations are subjective in the sense that they’re ours...but that’s not enough to describe the contents as subjective in the sense relevant to moral philosophy.

Consider, Acro, you also feel deeply personally motivated, but don’t think that this makes your morality subjective.

[Acrobat]

All of that indicates to me how you derived the ought here, but not about the nature of the ought.

I might say that using the same bases, I perceive an ought, that I see as an objective truth.

I’m just trying to understand whether someone like yourself, sees it more as assigning yourself a subjective goal/ought.

I might explain to you why I don’t like eating crabs, ie because I’m disgusted by the texture, it makes my throat itch, I had a bad experience with it when I was a kid, but I can indicate that my dislike of it is subjective.

I don't like the objective vs. subjective question because the cutting line between them can be fuzzy as hell.

The selection itself, I would say, is subjective to the person. The reasons, however, are based on predictions or observed facts.

I’ve had a number of atheists suggest that they have issues with the objective vs subjective distinction, though primarily when it comes to morality.

For the most part, people have less of issue indicating things as objective, such in regards to moral facts, or the tree in front of my yard, but subjective is where they have hangups.

In my view anything that isn’t objective is subjective. So if your consider right and wrong objective truths, but don’t consider moral oughts objective truths, than they’d fall under subjective.

Objective would indicate something that’s true independent of your own personal particularities,
If it’s the sort of things that true for you, but necessarily for me, than they’re subjective.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then theft being punishable by fines and imprisonment, as well as the loss of reputation and alienation of affection referred to, are objective ought justifications.

It doesn’t really matter whether or not a person cares, that’s what’s going to happen.

Obviously, if a person has no personal motivation to avoid any of that it wouldn’t matter if it were subjective -or- objective. They just don’t give a shit either way.

[downbeatplumb]

This question is primarily reserved for Atheists who subscribe to Moral Realism.

You drop your wallet, I’m tempted to keep it/steal it to buy myself an Xbox.

A moral realist, at least in regards to the scenario above would agree, that stealing is wrong, and that this is an objective truth.

So if a realist came up to me, and said stealing is wrong, I can understand that they are stating a fact, an objective truth in doing so.

Now if the realist says to me that I ought not steal, are they also expressing an objective truth? Or is it more of a subjective goal than an objective truth?

If I said no it’s not wrong to steal, according to moral realism, I’d be stating something factually incorrect, like stating the earth is flat.

Now if i said I reject the statement that I ought not steal, am I rejecting a fact, an objective truth here? Or just some subjective goal you and others want me to follow?

I am nice so I return the wallet.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, lol? Even if it turned out that returning the wallet was morally wrong......

[GrandizerII]

I don't like the objective vs. subjective question because the cutting line between them can be fuzzy as hell.

The selection itself, I would say, is subjective to the person. The reasons, however, are based on predictions or observed facts.

I’ve had a number of atheists suggest that they have issues with the objective vs subjective distinction, though primarily when it comes to morality.

For the most part, people have less of issue indicating things as objective, such in regards to moral facts, or the tree in front of my yard, but subjective is where they have hangups.

In my view anything that isn’t objective is subjective. So if your consider right and wrong objective truths, but don’t consider moral oughts objective truths, than they’d fall under subjective.

Objective would indicate something that’s true independent of your own personal particularities,
If it’s the sort of things that true for you, but necessarily for me, than they’re subjective.

Ok, so let's put it this way:

P: People I care about would react strongly against me if I steal someone else's wallet.
C: I ought not to steal someone else's wallet.

Where would the subjective bit here be exactly? P seems to indicate an objective truth (if true), not a subjective one. If it's true, it's true regardless of what you or I may think.

[Acrobat]

I’ve had a number of atheists suggest that they have issues with the objective vs subjective distinction, though primarily when it comes to morality.

For the most part, people have less of issue indicating things as objective, such in regards to moral facts, or the tree in front of my yard, but subjective is where they have hangups.

In my view anything that isn’t objective is subjective. So if your consider right and wrong objective truths, but don’t consider moral oughts objective truths, than they’d fall under subjective.

Objective would indicate something that’s true independent of your own personal particularities,
If it’s the sort of things that true for you, but necessarily for me, than they’re subjective.

Ok, so let's put it this way:

P: People I care about would react strongly against me if I steal someone else's wallet.
C: I ought not to steal someone else's wallet.

Where would the subjective bit here be exactly? P seems to indicate an objective truth (if true), not a subjective one. If it's true, it's true regardless of what you or I may think.

Because C doesn't follow from P

P: People I care about would react strongly against me if I support black lives matter.
C: I ought not support black lives matter.

P: People I care about would react strongly against me if I steal someone's wallet.
A:it makes me feel really bad if they reacted strongly against me, and I'm scared of the risk that they'll find out.
C: I ought not steal some one else's wallet.

You're missing something like A, in yours. And perhaps you can seen why A is a subjective bit in my version.

[GrandizerII]

Ok, so let's put it this way:

P: People I care about would react strongly against me if I steal someone else's wallet.
C: I ought not to steal someone else's wallet.

Where would the subjective bit here be exactly? P seems to indicate an objective truth (if true), not a subjective one. If it's true, it's true regardless of what you or I may think.

Because C doesn't follow from P

P: People I care about would react strongly against me if I support black lives matter.
C: I ought not support black lives matter.

P: People I care about would react strongly against me if I steal someone's wallet.
A:it makes me feel really bad if they reacted strongly against me, and I'm scared of the risk that they'll find out.
C: I ought not steal some one else's wallet.

You're missing something like A, in yours. And perhaps you can seen why A is a subjective bit in my version.

It's not meant to be a 100% deductive argument. The conclusion is a reasonable conclusion, not the conclusion of a logically valid argument.

And A is objectively true, because it would be true regardless of what you may think about it.

See why I don't like the subjective vs. objective question?

[The Grand Nudger]

Or....you could add an evaluative premise, and have a 100% valid argument.

It’s there anyway, it just doesn’t strike you to say it.

Not that Acro has room to complain. His don’t follow either, but he doesn’t seem to think that makes them “subjective”....which, fact check, it actually doesnt anyway, since that’s not what subjective means in the first place.

The objective/subjective divide is a very simple principle. It only gets irritating when people like our buddy “ask questions”..... by which I mean shit the bed incapable of accepting that they have no divine purchase on moral realism.

[Acrobat]

Because C doesn't follow from P

P: People I care about would react strongly against me if I support black lives matter.
C: I ought not support black lives matter.

P: People I care about would react strongly against me if I steal someone's wallet.
A:it makes me feel really bad if they reacted strongly against me, and I'm scared of the risk that they'll find out.
C: I ought not steal some one else's wallet.

You're missing something like A, in yours. And perhaps you can seen why A is a subjective bit in my version.

It's not meant to be a 100% deductive argument. The conclusion is a reasonable conclusion, not the conclusion of a logically valid argument.

And A is objectively true, because it would be true regardless of what you may think about it.

See why I don't like the subjective vs. objective question?

Pretty much any subjective taste, opinion, contains some elements of a factual nature. Like my taste in food, is predicated on particular flavor combinations, etc...

The reason your above is subjective, is because C is only true for you, and follows from a subjective component like A, not P, that you just didn't include. 

C wouldn't  follow from P if you didn't care how people reacted to you, or found the risk of getting caught negligible to the point of being non-existent.