When it comes to the moral argument, it seems like a lot of theists conflate Moral Subjectivity with Moral Relativity. Matt Slick is probably the most notorious case. He does this several times in his debates with Scott Clifton and Skylar Fiction, among others. The argument is that without God grounding morality, secular morality becomes arbitrary and relativistic in a “to each their own“ kind of way, where people can choose to murder as long as they personally feel it’s fine and those who are personally opposed to murder can choose not to. A common gotcha question is “How can you call what another culture does immoral if you don’t believe in objective morality or believe that morals are subjective?” but this is like asking, “How can you call a lemon sour if you believe taste isn‘t objective?” It’s just a non-sequitur. If you want to be particularly asinine, you can say “so it’s just your opinion, then“ and that would technically be right, but keep in mind, it‘s also “just” a doctor’s opinion that you shouldn’t eat glass or drink gasoline. It’s “just” a fire safety expert’s opinion that you shouldn’t put out a grease fire with water. It’s “just” a culinary chef’s opinion that you shouldn’t serve raw food.

One of the next dialogue chains is for the moral objectivist to list a bunch of scenarios and for each one, ask the moral subjectivist “is this moral or immoral?” and then after the subjectivist answers, ask them how they can call it immoral if it‘s subjectively moral according to the culture/time period it happened in. To explain why this line of questioning is tedious and dull, try asking a person what they think of black licorice. If they say “nasty,” keep asking them if they would find it tasty in different areas of the world: “Would you like black licorice in Nigeria? How about Tibet? France?” This is pointless and will not change the answer since it’s based on the person’s subjective experience, which would be universally held no matter what culture/area. This is where confusion between Subjectivism and Relativism is most common. Objectivity and Subjectivity are actually only one axis of morality, the other axis is Relativity and Universality. This creates four quadrants: Universal Objectivism, Universal Subjectivism, Objective Relativism, and Subjective Relativism (don’t know if those are the actual names or not, but we’ll go with them for simplicity sake). These categories can be described as follows:

• Objective, Universal - Morality is a real

Considering it seems to be the dominant opinion in the west, I think I must be misunderstanding it.

If facts don't exist about human values wouldn't it follow that anyone who critisised the behaviour of someone else wouldn't have any grounding? Yet it seems like we are constantly pointing out ethical flaws we see. Also how does it differ to moral relativism?

Appreciate any help, just starting to enjoy philosophy but get easily confused.

EDIT: I feel dumb for not finding this when looking up the differences but here is the differences/criticisms of subjectivism by Ayn Rand. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/subjectivism.html

Both understood as opposed to moral realism (from SEP):

>one can deny that moral judgments are beliefs, one can deny that moral judgments are ever true, or one can deny that moral judgments are ever justified. The noncognitivist makes the first of these denials, and the error theorist makes the second, thus noncognitivists and error theorists count as both moral anti-realists and moral skeptics. However, since the non-objectivity of some fact does not pose a particular problem regarding the possibility of one’s knowing it (I might know that a certain diamond is worth $1000, for example), then there is nothing to stop the moral non-objectivist from accepting the existence of moral knowledge. So moral non-objectivism is a form of moral anti-realism that need not be a form of moral skepticism. Conversely, one might maintain that moral judgments are sometimes objectively true—thus being a moral realist

So moral non-objectivism (subjectivism; used here interchangeably) is in opposition >to error theory, which denies that any moral propositions are true in any sense

(1) What senses are meant here? In what sense is a moral statement true within subjectivism but false within objectivism? Are they subjectively true? Is there an assumed theory of truth?

(2) Are these merely trivially true descriptive statements like "Amy thinks she shouldn't abort iff she thinks based on (reasons based on) her beliefs, judgements or desires that abortion is wrong"

(3) Is there a meaningful difference to "Amy thinks she shouldn't abort iff she thinks based on (reasons based on) her beliefs, judgements or desires that abortion is wrong"

(4) Are these conditional statements only or are there somehow indicative true moral statements.

(5) Is the statement about Bob, who is a moral subjectivist and thinks that abortion is permissible, correct? "Bob, knowing that Amy thinks abortion is wrong, thinks Amy shouldn't abort."

(6) Is one, thinking that objective truths are the only truths yet rejecting moral realism, committed to either error theory or non-cognitivism?

(7) What are good (instructive) examples of objectively true and false moral statement respectively (from a moral realist perspective) that from the perspective of moral subjectivism would be true yet for the error theorist false.

Thanks in advance for answers to any of my questions!

There are many moral realists, some prominent examples of error-theorists, non-cognitivists, some relativists (and arguments that defend these concrete theories) but what are some examples of moral subjectivism philosophers and arguments that defend this metaethical theory? By moral subjectivism I mean classical moral subjectivism, that moral facts exist and our attitude towards them are what makes them true of false.

I might be missing something here, but I kinda just get baffled by how often EFAP will disregard something as just being ‘good acting’ as if that means the scene isn’t good. Unless the acting is good, but out of character I don’t get why this shouldn’t be allowed as praise

So, I am not referring to the morality of murder or stealing, nor kindness being a positive.

But regarding questionable things like whether or not all Jewish laws apply to Christians being grafted in through their faith, is Paul saying that it is subjective to the individual whether their actions are a sin?

Pro-Atheism philosophies promote rape, pedophilia, and promiscuity from these main angles:

1 - By being pro subjectivist moral view!

2 - By the very fact of using utilitarianism and the harm principle, as promoted by atheist Philosopher of ethics Peter Singer

>"Advocates for people with disabilities do not care for utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer. This is because Singer has publicly justified killing disabled newborn infants because of their disabilities. In his book Practical Ethics, Singer weighed the moral justifications for taking the lives of disabled babies. He concluded that in severe cases, such as for children with spina bifida, it might well be morally wrong not to take a baby’s life. For less serious conditions, such as hemophilia, Singer concluded that the decision as to whether or not to kill the infant should depend on whether it would make the parents happy, and whether they intended to “replace” the child with another, non-disabled one: “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”.... Singer and McMahan write: “If we assume that he is profoundly cognitively impaired, we should concede that he cannot understand the normal significance of sexual relations between persons or the meaning and significance of sexual violation. These are, after all, difficult to articulate even for persons of normal cognitive capacity. In that case, he is incapable of giving or withholding informed consent to sexual relations; indeed, he may lack the concept of consent altogether. This does not exclude the possibility that he was wronged by Stubblefield, but it makes it less clear what the nature of the wrong might be. It seems reasonable to assume that the experience was pleasurable to him; for even if he is cognitively impaired, he was capable of struggling to resist.”.... Consider carefully what is being said here. Here, Singer and McMahan are assuming D.J. is severely impaired. But, they say, that means he is too intellectually inhibited to understand the notion of consent. And because he doesn’t understand consent, he can’t withhold it. And because h

New to this subreddit, enjoying the posts. I learnt quite a bit about moral realism/anti-realism etc. since I recently got interested in this topic (again). Thanks for all the great content and debates!

In a few recent conversations with a moral anti-realist (subjectivist), I found myself at odds when said person (say: X) claimed "murder (of innocent) people is wrong" is merely a personal preference, and there are no moral rights or wrongs. I responded by arguing that if another agent Y had a preference to murder/kill, X has no way out of this dilemma. I never got a response (which I think implies my interlocutor didn't have a counter-argument), so the conversation of dragged on till he/she/they admitted that "97% of people agree it is wrong to kill" would still imply it is subjective, and therefore no objective morality exists. (Strange as I see it.)

Further down the road, said person utilized the Evolutionary Debunking Argument (EDA) to argue that evolution has programmed people to survive > no moral realism. (Therefore, nobody would like to be murdered or murder?) [I don't think EDA is sufficient to disprove realism, but I have yet to read up more on it.]

I would be glad to have some commentary on this matter. (FWIW: I am a moral realist if that wasn't clear, just not really sure if I'm a minimal realist, or robust (or or...), since there's a bit too much jargon to wrap my head around.)

Salam. So I've recently watched this video on morality. I realized that I reasoned that his argument is contradictory within itself.

So I figured an example to debunk this would be nice.
>! 1+1=2 and it is objectively true. Say, 1+1=2 is TR One side says who say 'TR' is untrue because 1+1=3. And nothing is objectively true. say that is FL So now we can use logic and reason plus some simple meths to crack the conclusion that indeed, the objection to TR is false, therefore it is false due to it's weeding with the assumption that they are right and the other is wrong. The point is that there CAN be an absolute truth, it's just that the rebuttal will just say 'You're just saying TR because you THINK it is' when we all KNOW that TR is true. Absolute truth is proved by logic and reason, because 1+1=2 and you think 1+1=3 My example of 1+1=2,3 is a biased example, because it assumes that the other side is saying the false thing(that they think is false). !<

And i realized i circlethinked.

What's the actual Islamic perspective on this?

For example: I feel, beyond doubt, that the holocaust was wrong and I believe that statement to be true regardless of the subjective perspectives of people that might think it wasn’t wrong. I don’t think my belief that it was wrong is just as credible as the belief that it it wasn’t (as would be the case if there was no moral truths, just subjective opinion).

Also I appreciate that if I’m a moral objectivist I must hold that there is some kind of moral absolute that I can appeal to that isn’t subject to subjects experience/feeling. But the crux of the matter is that I am struggling to find that moral absolute, be it god or some other form of universal constant.

On the one hand I can’t say that the morality of the holocaust is subjective to how people perceive it, because that is to say there is no truth to it being morally abhorrent (it would go entirely against intuition and would possibly justify all sorts of horrific behaviour). But on the other hand I can’t find a good definition for my objective, inscrutable moral truth.

Please help.

Thank you.

By popular demand, your winner and topic for this week's discussion is...

Subjectivism Vs Objectivism

Please share your experiences, knowledge, reviews, questions, or anything that you think might add to the conversation here.

As always, vote and suggest new topics in the poll for the next discussion. Previous discussions can be found here.

It seems like Objectivists only consider measurements when comparing products, while Subjectivists only consider subjective listening impressions. Why is there no conversation about what audible differences certain measurements produce? If someone says "This amp is definitely more warm and smooth than this other amp", why can't we have a discussion about the technical differences between the two products in an attempt to identify possible causes for the audible difference?

Do Mutualists still believe in LTV or have they accepted Subjectivism? Is there a mixed consensus? Also, do Mutualists believe in making profits or in following LVT are against it?

I’m trying to learn about Market Anarchism, Mutualism and economics so any and all help is appreciated.

Edit: I know the title says “LVT” but I meant to write “LTV”

We have all heard Carnists declare "moral relativism" at the idea of adopting veganism from time to time, haven't we? Well, I wanted to share a few thoughts regarding it from among a vast multitude of ways of thinking about it.

First of all, there are no actual moral relativists. There can't be, by necessity. You can discuss or profess it in an abstract philosophical sense, but no human being can be a true moral relativist. It doesn't really exist in the real world because the theory can't match up to reality. Nobody truly believes or lives their life by the rule of "nothing is objectively bad, I can do what I want," it's just not feasible to live that way. You can argue for it, but in the end you will have to end up living your life as if ethics were objective.

Disregarding the fact that (at least most) Carnists do not proclaim to hold amorality as a universal principle pertaining to other matters and that they would be wrong in attempting to do so regardless in my view, I think no one denies the totally uncontroversial, observational fact that ethical norms and values vary across space and time. It's similar to how every other aspect of humans can vary across a wide range of spectrum, which can be changed based on past experience. As biological beings, our moral and ethical systems are an extension of our biological systems. And like every biological systems, there are a range of options that's possible within numerous variations depending on experience. Multiple of them may work for us.

However, that doesn't mean that there are an infinite number, or that it is acceptable to switch between them based purely on personal convenience. Many of our moral intuitions are hardwired into us, and any ethical system is limited by our complex nature as human beings. Insinuating the idea that moral values can range indefinitely is incoherent. And if moral values reflect culture, naturally it should be questioned — how does a person acquire their culture? It comes from observing a limited palette of behaviors and actions which translates to the set of attitudes conjured in the mind, which in turn construct the culture. It's just like discovering something new, or learning something you didn't know before. And that jump to knowledge, using as an example, is then turned into a system of knowing.

This jump is made from disorganized information to reach an outcome in the same way it is done by all individuals. The individuals who all share a relatively fixed experien

I know this sub skews objectivist, so I don't have high hopes for a discussion here, but I'm not sure where else to ask this.

Subjectivists say ABX tests and measurements don't get at the heart of the issue, which ultimately is the way you perceive music when listening normally in your space. That's fair enough. But if we're taking into account everything that affects "the way I perceive music", my perception of my equipment as a whole comes into play.

For example:

I have an Audio Research SP-11 tube-hybrid preamp. It is a dual-chassis design, with the power supply in a separate box. Each gain stage is a hybrid of a tube, FET and JFET, designed to compliment each other and produce a low-distortion signal. The construction is very high quality, with every component over-spec'd for the job it does.

I perceive all this attention to detail and quality engineering as "cool". That all plays into my overall perception of the equipment, and therefore my subjective perception of the sound.

I first wondered if subjectivism always led one to chose the more expensive, more "high end" piece of equipment. I now think it's more nuanced than that, as there is plenty of expensive gear I'm not interested in. But it does leave me with this question: Does subjectivism ultimately lead to one buying gear they think is "cool", regardless of actual performance? Much as one might chose an American muscle car over an objectively superior German sport sedan?

My observation is that Audiophile communities tend to organize into "objectivist" or "subjectivist" communities. This is an objectivist community. Anything that disagrees with an objectivist assessment is rejected here. I'm on some Facebook communities that are subjectivist. Any objectivist sentiment I post there is rejected.

I've noticed a general trend that older folk tend to be subjectivists and younger folk tend to be objectivists. I'm trying to understand why this is, and why subjectivism took hold. Even if you argue that measurements don't tell the full story, why are blind listening tests rejected? It seems so bazaar to me, it's almost a religious issue.

I guess what I'm looking for is a history lesson. How did audiophiles think about, compare, and purchase gear in the 60s? How did that change over time? And why is objective analysis such a dirty word in so many communities?

Here's a discussion starter: what's reality, what we hear subjectively, or what we can measure empirically?

What if the two differ in obvious ways? Either the measurements say they should sound the same, yet they do not; or the sound is imperceivably similar despite measurable differences?

What has your experience been with cases like that, and how did you come to a meaningful conclusion?

Disclaimer: see Rule #1--coexist with those who have different beliefs or experiences. This isn't a battle of science vs. mythology, it's a discussion about what makes music sound the way it does and how the science of electronics meets the reality of our perception.

Ok, so this might be a really weird and noobish question, but I was wondering:

since in many illustrations & in basic literature constructionism and subjectivism are often subsumed, does that mean

• they allow each other to coexist or
• does constructionism indeed contain subjectivism (as one direction, given it constructs meaning in a reciprocal way)?

Or did I get it all wrong?

random example image of what I mean

If one subscribes to moral subjetivism then one cannot judge a murderer. Isnt it hard to not judge a murderer ? How do Folks who subscribe to Subjective morality deal with this ?

Should there be a room to let the Christian to be responsible to the Lord themselves on the matters which isn't instructed in the Bible? Of course as a Christian we must not comprise on says the holy living as our Lord is holy, thus the church should not take sinful matters loosely.

But how about things which the bible is silent about? What about I like to play video game as a hobby or do a sport or whatever.

If my calling isn't to become a pastor then for sure I'll make a living working a norm job. Not sure why I felt I'm less godly when I'm not ministering as a paid pastor. That's why the title of this thread is about subjectivsms and godliness.

By popular demand, your winner and topic for this week's discussion...

Interpreting Measurements: Significance, Limitations, And Methods Or The Battle Between Subjectivism And Data

Please share your experiences, knowledge, reviews, questions, or anything that you think might add to the conversation here.

As always, vote and suggest new topics in the poll for the next discussion. Previous discussions can be found here.