Subjectivist Morality Nihilates Itself

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Subjectivist Morality Nihilates Itself

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2009 07:16 pm
I was in an ethics class today, and an incredible realization crept up on me. The subjectivist morality, one that we see quite a lot of among Americans...especially on certain morality fora (I dare not name them) on the internet, is ultimately this: "what's right is what's right for you." A person's actions must be justed as either immoral or moral based on his own moral standard. This often has the formulation: "Morality is subjective."

It occured to me that subjectivism ultimately nihilates itself.
If one is a subjectivist, then one is forced to ask what the basis of morality is. The subjectivist must answer that morality has no basis except the will of the agent who is judging his own action as either moral or immoral.

Yet, if we say that "man is the measure of all things," or rather each "man is the measure of all things," then we find ourselves forced to admit that at the very moment a moral agent wills something, then that moral agent sees the willed thing as good, since Socrates says "no man does evil knowingly."

The subjectivist moral theorist is ultimately forced both to admit with Sartre that "there is no a priori good," and therefore that "every man chooses the good."

Simply put, if one is a subjectivist moral theorist one is ultimately forced to admit that every decision made by a moral agent is morally good. Doesn't sound so bad? It should sound bad! If you are a subjective moral theorist, then there is no such thing as immorality when the action is performed by a moral agent. If you are a subjective moral theorist, then you are forced to admit that every single willful action is good!

So behold!

Susie bombs an abortion clinic! Killing abortion "doctors" is good, and abortion is wrong.

The next day, Susie procures an abortion. Abortion is ok!

Abortion is both wrong and not wrong with respect to the same person.

Simply put, "subjectivist morality" is not only self nihilating...but rather it's an incoherent term...not to mention that it leads to contradictions.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 12:14 am
@Bonaventurian,
What does nihilate even mean?

Your failing to take account that what is good for one should be good for all. Therefore, if an individual crosses the boundaries of others and does things that are not good for others, then they were not good to begin with. The individual that crossed the boundaries is guilty of shortsightedness.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 02:38 am
@Theaetetus,
I think proponents of subjective morality, or moral relativism, have always understood that the doctrine contains logical contradictions.

I think the more biting attack against these arguments is the is/ought distinction as most of their arguments begin with an exposition of what is. For example, they speak of moral discrepancies between diverse societies and try to condone these discrepancies by accepting them as morally appropriate. I have sympathy for their efforts, which is to suppress xenophobia and hatefulness, but I also believe that better arguments can be introduced to undercut hate.
 
Joe
 
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 03:07 am
@Didymos Thomas,
If your saying that subjective Morality destroys its own Foundation, I cant agree with that.

Maybe the issue is Morals relative to subjective perception.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 06:55 am
@Bonaventurian,
I admit that I have done things that I knew to be wrong in order to satisfy some want that, at the time, was higher on my priority than moral correctness.

Your argument is shredded and you cannot argue with me.
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 08:51 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
I think any moral code should be objective , no one person can say my actions are moral.We are judged and rejudged , we argue, debate fight for objectivity through subjective reasoning.One mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist.
 
Bonaventurian
 
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 05:52 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
I admit that I have done things that I knew to be wrong in order to satisfy some want that, at the time, was higher on my priority than moral correctness.

Your argument is shredded and you cannot argue with me.


At the moment you chose it, you chose it thinking it to be some good. If subjective morality is right, then you did in fact do what is moral for you...the problem isn't with the immorality of the act. The problem is (as Sartre would say) that you are in bad faith about what you've done.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 06:19 am
@Bonaventurian,
Bonaventurian wrote:
At the moment you chose it, you chose it thinking it to be some good. If subjective morality is right, then you did in fact do what is moral for you...the problem isn't with the immorality of the act. The problem is (as Sartre would say) that you are in bad faith about what you've done.


Are you saying that only morality informs are decisions? Are there no other values that influence our decisions?

No person is ever of one mind when making a decision, and there are always costs to any course of action. Sometimes, and it may be the only definition of sin, it is our sense of right and wrong that suffers.
 
MuseEvolution
 
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2009 10:20 am
@Bonaventurian,
The difference for me lies in the existence of a multitude of agents. Sure, Suzie may decide to bomb an abortion clinic killing doctors and decide this is good, and if she lived in a vacuum it certainly could be good (setting aside the non-existence of doctors in a vacuum). However because Suzie lives in a society in which other agents have agreed to live by a definition of good involving the preservation of the lives of doctors, Suzie's determination of blowing them up as good simply doesn't matter.

If she wishes to exist in a place or society where blowing up doctors is good, she will need to remove herself to such a place; a task I personally would assume to be fairly difficult.
 
click here
 
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 02:49 am
@MuseEvolution,
Theaetetus wrote:

Your failing to take account that what is good for one should be good for all. Therefore, if an individual crosses the boundaries of others and does things that are not good for others, then they were not good to begin with. The individual that crossed the boundaries is guilty of shortsightedness.


That seems like your coming from an absolutist point of view. How are you to say what should be "good for all" has to be done? If it isn't done how are you to say that it is wrong? Or even what is "good for all"?

MuseEvolution wrote:
The difference for me lies in the existence of a multitude of agents. Sure, Suzie may decide to bomb an abortion clinic killing doctors and decide this is good, and if she lived in a vacuum it certainly could be good (setting aside the non-existence of doctors in a vacuum). However because Suzie lives in a society in which other agents have agreed to live by a definition of good involving the preservation of the lives of doctors, Suzie's determination of blowing them up as good simply doesn't matter.



Just because so and so agreed to live by a set of rules doesn't make those rules inherently good. Yes Suzie would be going against the grain but that wouldn't make her wrong from a relativist point of view.



Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
Are you saying that only morality informs are decisions? Are there no other values that influence our decisions?

No person is ever of one mind when making a decision, and there are always costs to any course of action. Sometimes, and it may be the only definition of sin, it is our sense of right and wrong that suffers.



Are you referring to values of others or values that are intangible and not created by others?

If you're referring to values of others then why would not using those values to help guide you be wrong? I thought a relativist standpoint was subjective always. So others values are of no importance. Course you can take them into account if you want but that is part of your own subjective decision. If you choose not to take them into account it is also part of your subjective decision. You can not be required to take them into account. When you say "no person if ever of one mind when making decisions" I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. I would say from a relativist standpoint that even though someone takes into their decision the influence of others they don't have to do that.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 06:20 am
@click here,
click here wrote:

Are you referring to values of others or values that are intangible and not created by others?

If you're referring to values of others then why would not using those values to help guide you be wrong? I thought a relativist standpoint was subjective always. So others values are of no importance. Course you can take them into account if you want but that is part of your own subjective decision. If you choose not to take them into account it is also part of your subjective decision. You can not be required to take them into account. When you say "no person if ever of one mind when making decisions" I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. I would say from a relativist standpoint that even though someone takes into their decision the influence of others they don't have to do that.


I am saying that every man is a collection of competing values, his own values according to his nature and what he has adopted. All of our actions are attempts to satisfy these values, and at no time in anyone's life can he or she act in any way as to satisfy all of these at once. Most often, from my experience, I have found that certain values will suffer in order to satisfy others.

To say that we act always with our conception of the good in mind denies this apparent truth.
 
click here
 
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 06:55 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
I am saying that every man is a collection of competing values, his own values according to his nature and what he has adopted. All of our actions are attempts to satisfy these values, and at no time in anyone's life can he or she act in any way as to satisfy all of these at once. Most often, from my experience, I have found that certain values will suffer in order to satisfy others.

To say that we act always with our conception of the good in mind denies this apparent truth.


I think maybe it would help if you gave an example as to what you are referring to. So would you be saying that someone could view something as wrong but because they really want to do it they bypass their moral opinions this one time and do it anyway? So they think it is wrong in their opinion but they do it anyway because they are maybe angry, have a strong desire, etc... If that is what you are saying I can agree with that.

In response to the OP: "Simply put, if one is a subjectivist moral theorist one is ultimately forced to admit that every decision made by a moral agent is morally good. "

I would change that to: "Simply put, if one is a subjectivist moral theorist one is ultimately forced to admit that every decision made by a moral agent that he/she views as good is morally good."

I would say that after you reword it like that then you don't really get anywhere since we already knew that. That's pretty much what moral relativism is right? Your opinions on morals are right and wrong in your own eye's and no one has the right to say that what you do is inherently wrong (except in their own eyes)

What irritates me is when people call themselves moral relativists and then say that what someone else did is wrong and expect others to agree with them.

To put it bluntly: If your gonna be a moral relativist then keep your mouth shut because no body cares what you have to say. (in respect to your opinions on whether or not something is wrong or right)
:brickwall:
 
Pythagorean
 
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 07:24 am
@Bonaventurian,
Bonaventurian wrote:


So behold!

Susie bombs an abortion clinic! Killing abortion "doctors" is good, and abortion is wrong.

The next day, Susie procures an abortion. Abortion is ok!

Abortion is both wrong and not wrong with respect to the same person.

Simply put, "subjectivist morality" is not only self nihilating...but rather it's an incoherent term...not to mention that it leads to contradictions.


The difficulty we confront when dealing with subjective morality or moral relativism is that they originate from purely political motives. As a social phenomena moral relativism is proximately located in the cultural history of the United States.

The woman who bombs an abortion clinic is an "absolutist" because she is a cultural conservative. If the woman who bombs an abortion clinic were to go out and have an abortion herself she would cease to be a genuine conservative.

It is the political correctness of current liberal theory which demands subjectivist morality. To call into question the validity of moral relativism is to risk excommunication and be blacklisted from Hollywood parties and Pelosi get-to-gethers. So the contradictions or annihilations on theoretical grounds are meaningless. There is a greater post-modern totalitarianism at work here. This socialism-of-the-mind which masquerades as moral relativism supports immoral social behaviour. It is more risky to be labelled as a cultural conservative than it is to perform immoral or questionable social activities.

One must keep a political scorecard in order to be capable of comprehending the matter. Because it is an anti-conservative subjectivist morality only. They call it anti-authoritarian libertinism. The masses are willingly enslaved through emotional and unconscious appetities and desires. They think they are free because there is no moral code outside of political and cultural conservatism.

So, I would say the more important question is: does moral relativism truly free the individual or does it, in fact, enslave him? Are we truly free when we are allowed to act in ways that are morally questionable or does this 'freedom' from morality make us moral slaves? (Take porn, for example. Does the addition of wild porno free us or does our addiction to it actually reduce our freedom by keeping us pre-occupied, not to say obsessed, with trifling matters of selfish appetites?)

"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude."

[RIGHT]--Aldous Huxley
Brave New World[/RIGHT]
 
hammersklavier
 
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 08:31 am
@Bonaventurian,
Bonaventurian, what you have just described is essentially the same as my reductio ad absurdum of Objectivism: if what is right is what you do and you do something that contra-acts what you did before, then either both are right, or none are: either bombing the clinic is OK or getting an abortion is, but the same cannot hold true for both at the same time.

In much the same vein, testifying against someone who killed your best friend and then going out and killing a rival of yours cannot both be OK, because the two acts contra-act--or what you would call nihilate--themselves, in regards to the subjectivist Objectivist standpoint.

This is not to say that a subjectivist morality must therefore in all cases be a false morality, but rather that the subjectivist system the laity implicitly follow must be wrong. There are subjectivist or relativist standpoints that may not necessarily be inherently immoral--Nietzshe-ism, Taoism, for instance.
 
click here
 
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 08:57 am
@hammersklavier,
hammersklavier wrote:
Bonaventurian, what you have just described is essentially the same as my reductio ad absurdum of Objectivism: if what is right is what you do and you do something that contra-acts what you did before, then either both are right, or none are: either bombing the clinic is OK or getting an abortion is, but the same cannot hold true for both at the same time.

In much the same vein, testifying against someone who killed your best friend and then going out and killing a rival of yours cannot both be OK, because the two acts contra-act--or what you would call nihilate--themselves, in regards to the subjectivist Objectivist standpoint.

This is not to say that a subjectivist morality must therefore in all cases be a false morality, but rather that the subjectivist system the laity implicitly follow must be wrong. There are subjectivist or relativist standpoints that may not necessarily be inherently immoral--Nietzshe-ism, Taoism, for instance.


I don't think the OP is saying that both are good at the same time. I also don't think that you have to say that if one is wrong then the other is right. I think that within relativism they can surely change. I think what the OP is intending to say is that to the person with the moral opinions the act is not set it stone wrong. It can change so that what is right today may be wrong tomorrow. So no act is inherently wrong or right. An act is just an act viewed differently on what ever bases the person feels. If Suzie feels abortion is wrong one day then it is to her. If she changes her mind hours later then the moral changes with her. It's only her opinion. Just like someone can change their favorite color one day they can also change how they view ethics.

If that's not what the OP was intending to say then that's just what I have to say any how.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 09:39 am
@click here,
click here wrote:
I think maybe it would help if you gave an example as to what you are referring to. So would you be saying that someone could view something as wrong but because they really want to do it they bypass their moral opinions this one time and do it anyway? So they think it is wrong in their opinion but they do it anyway because they are maybe angry, have a strong desire, etc... If that is what you are saying I can agree with that.

In response to the OP: "Simply put, if one is a subjectivist moral theorist one is ultimately forced to admit that every decision made by a moral agent is morally good. "

I would change that to: "Simply put, if one is a subjectivist moral theorist one is ultimately forced to admit that every decision made by a moral agent that he/she views as good is morally good."

I would say that after you reword it like that then you don't really get anywhere since we already knew that. That's pretty much what moral relativism is right? Your opinions on morals are right and wrong in your own eye's and no one has the right to say that what you do is inherently wrong (except in their own eyes)

What irritates me is when people call themselves moral relativists and then say that what someone else did is wrong and expect others to agree with them.

To put it bluntly: If your gonna be a moral relativist then keep your mouth shut because no body cares what you have to say. (in respect to your opinions on whether or not something is wrong or right)
:brickwall:


It is important that even though we have subjective moral feelings and intuitions, morality only manifests itself and makes itself meaningful in the realm of actions.

It is important to realize that no action can be taken without a rational process. If debate breaks down to the basic sympathies which one holds by his or her nature argument argument is meaningless. If, however, the argument concerns the rationality behind the decision making, argumentation is perfectly valid from certain relativists.

It is also perfectly reasonable to try and convince someone that he is wrong, rather it is placing blame that the relativist should avoid.
 
click here
 
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 10:26 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
It is important that even though we have subjective moral feelings and intuitions, morality only manifests itself and makes itself meaningful in the realm of actions.

It is important to realize that no action can be taken without a rational process. If debate breaks down to the basic sympathies which one holds by his or her nature argument argument is meaningless. If, however, the argument concerns the rationality behind the decision making, argumentation is perfectly valid from certain relativists.

It is also perfectly reasonable to try and convince someone that he is wrong, rather it is placing blame that the relativist should avoid.


I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at or referring to with what I placed in bold.

As to what you said about convincing I disagree. It's as if I were to try and convince you that your favorite food is chicken when you keep insisting it is beef. There is no way I could throw evidence at you to refute your opinion. That would just make no sense. It is just an opinion. I can't prove it wrong. Now lets say you've never tried beef before and I get you to try some. That now becomes your favorite food because you like it so much more then chicken. I haven't convinced you that you were wrong about chicken from the beginning I have just opened your eyes to other opinions. Just because you have changed your opinion doesn't mean that you were wrong in the first place. So all I end up proving is that your favorite food is something that can be changed hence it being an opinion and not a fact. Relating this back to ethics: when you convince someone abortion is wrong when they use to think otherwise you just influence their opinion you don't prove them wrong. To prove someone wrong you have to have factual evidence to do so. A relativist by definition doesn't have any.

On a side note: Caffeine = hard to concentrate.
 
hammersklavier
 
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2009 01:45 pm
@Bonaventurian,
On a side note, so does trying to type it a few minutes before class.

The idea I'm trying to get across is that the performer performs one morally dichotomous action, i.e., bombing an abortion clinic, one day, and in inordinately brief time for her moral judgement to change she performs its antithesis, i.e., getting an abortion. In this structure there is so little time between the performance of the two actions that we may as well say they occurred at the same time (although that is itself inherently false).
 
Kolbe
 
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 08:56 am
@Bonaventurian,
Well surely for her to have had an abortion after such a short space of time, her morals must have changed, or she knowingly did evil from her own perspective. Taking into account the former, your dichotomy isn't necessarily true. It isn't so much two opposing rights, but what seemed right yesterday, and what seems right today. With the passage of time morals, as do most if not all things, change. As such a person can look back at a situation and see that they have done wrong. Miss Susie Hypothetical would at the the time of the abortion consider herself wrong for having destroyed the abortion clinic in the name of stopping abortions, which she would now support. That's the beauty of pure relativism, until the moment of death not a thing is infinitely true for the person as time is always passing.
 
click here
 
Reply Sat 24 Jan, 2009 09:18 am
@Kolbe,
Kolbe wrote:
Well surely for her to have had an abortion after such a short space of time, her morals must have changed, or she knowingly did evil from her own perspective. Taking into account the former, your dichotomy isn't necessarily true. It isn't so much two opposing rights, but what seemed right yesterday, and what seems right today. With the passage of time morals, as do most if not all things, change. As such a person can look back at a situation and see that they have done wrong. Miss Susie Hypothetical would at the the time of the abortion consider herself wrong for having destroyed the abortion clinic in the name of stopping abortions, which she would now support. That's the beauty of pure relativism, until the moment of death not a thing is infinitely true for the person as time is always passing.


I agree with what you say about her not viewing both actions as good. What I don't see is the beauty that you see. If morals are as easily changed as your favorite football team then I'd say that's pretty messed up.

Example:
If your best friend is brutally murdered you can feel sad but you have to remember that it's only wrong in your eyes and you better stop whining about it because not everyone sees things like you do especially not the guy that killed your friend. You have to remember that there was nothing inherently wrong with what he did. Hopefully that will help ease the pain. Just keep telling it to yourself. The act of killing is no more wrong then the act of blinking. The act of rape is no more wrong then walking. Just remember that it will help...

Yeah, I don't see the beauty in that.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Subjectivist Morality Nihilates Itself
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2024 at 04:38:51