Most Moral Subjectivists Aren't Serious

By -
Nihilism is really the right conclusion to draw from moral irrealism. But if you push most moral subjectivists, you will find that they don't really believe what they claim.

For instance, test someone who says, "We each define our own morality" by saying, "OK, then it would be fine for me, if I could get the votes, to pass a law making any non-procreative sex a capital crime?"

"WHAT?! You don't get to enforce your morality on me!"

"Why not? In the morality I defined for myself, it is perfectly OK for me to do so."

"But, but..."

What they really meant is that they think some things traditionally morally prescribed (such as, say, pre-marital sex) aren't really morally wrong at all. But since they have failed to convince everyone of this, they say, "Hey, you get your morality, and I get mine."

But they clearly think it is objectively wrong for someone to outlaw the sexual practices they enjoy.

Comments

  1. dkuehn6:17 PM

    I would think there are relatively few moral subjectivists. Probably most people that come across to you as subjectivists don't actually think that people can make up their own morality - but rather than morality is collectively constructed in some way.

    At least I hope there aren't many moral subjectivists out there! That does sound like it would be a pretty crazy world to live in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah7:50 PM

      "I would think there are relatively few moral subjectivists. Probably most people that come across to you as subjectivists don't actually think that people can make up their own morality - but rather than morality is collectively constructed in some way."

      OK, so GROUPS make up their own morality: that is just moral subjectivism with "we" as the subject instead of "I."

      Delete
    2. Daniel10:47 AM

      But the implications are different when you go from "I" to "we". Morals impact human social relations. "I"-subjectivism is as crazy as you point out here precisely because it ignores the fact that morals regulate our social relations.

      Delete
  2. rob6:27 PM

    I don't understand why you think that a belief that morality is subjectively based also implies that the holder of this belief should just passively accept the rights of others to impose their morality on them.

    It seems perfectly consistent to believe that everyone has a subjectively-derived morality AND be prepared to align with others to enforce (or resist) areas of "morality" where these is common ground.

    The ability to enforce a non-procreational sex-ban has nothing to do with whether or not the believe that the ban is justified is grounded in objective or subjective morality and everything to do with the political reality facing the would-be enforcer.

    Most societies seem to have found enough common ground amongst their members to have agreement that such things as serial killing are wrong - but does this makes it an objectively-derived moral tenet or just a commonly-held subjective one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah7:55 PM

      "I don't understand why you think that a belief that morality is subjectively based also implies that the holder of this belief should just passively accept the rights of others to impose their morality on them."

      There is a good reason you don't understand why I think this, rob. It is because I don't think it, nor have I ever said anything remotely like it.

      "The ability to enforce a non-procreational sex-ban has nothing to do with whether or not the believe that the ban is justified is grounded in objective or subjective morality and everything to do with the political reality facing the would-be enforcer."

      Once again, rob, I must ask wtf? Where did I talk about the ability to enforce some law having anything to do with objective morality? The Nazis were plenty able to enforce anti-Jewish laws. At this point, you might stop and ask yourself, "Why do I keep feeling the need to make things up and put them in Gene's mouth?"


      So, rob, when there was a widespread consensus in the American South that slavery was fine and plenty of ability to enforce that consensus, would you then be just fine with that situation?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more