A Religious Truism?

[Joe Durnavich]

This thread may have run its course, but for the sake of archeologists of the future who uncover this, I think we should try to clarify the meaning of subjective and objective. There seem to be different senses of terms in use here.

In the original post, Jason said, "The statement only concerns whether morals are a matter of perspective or reflect a reality beyond the observer. He also posted, "Well, if morals are subjective then why should we follow them? They're only someone's opinion." So, if I understand him right, Jason uses the sense of subjective as personal opinion and not a fact. The Webster's dictionary includes that sense of subjective: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of the mind.

Jay defined subjective as "varies from person to person." Many others appear to be using it in that sense. Reynoldbot seems to use both. He referred to objective as being rules that applied to everybody, but he also seemed to associate the subjective with opinion: "As long as we have the freedom to have individual opinions, morality will be subjective."

I was trying to be faithful to Jason's meaning. In a discussion in another forum, somebody defined the objective as "something one can be wrong about." That has stuck with me over the years.

Consider this:

(1) Blueberry pie is the best-tasting pie.

This is a statement the speaker cannot be wrong about because it is a matter of personal taste and opinion. As far as I can tell, this fits everyone's notion of subjective.

(2) This has blueberries in it? My doctor told me that I have a rare condition that makes me allergic to blueberries. I am going to be sick.

Is the statement in (2), "I am going to be sick" subjective? In the sense of subjective meaning "varies from person to person," then apparently, yes. However, in the sense I think Jason intended, then, no. It is a statement (or claim) of fact, and the fact is a stubborn thing, a matter of biochemistry more than personal opinion.

The speaker in (2) could be wrong, of course. Perhaps its turns out that the quantity of blueberries was too low to trigger an allergic reaction. Does the possibility of being wrong doom it to subjectivity?

I was trying to point out that morality is a guide to action and that to achieve particular objectives, reality must be obeyed. The individual in (2) must avoid blueberries to avoid sickness and possibly death. This fact may apply to just him, but it is also not a matter of opinion.

[JayUtah]

My definition was, "varies legitimately from person to person," which may not be an important correction. But it does say that my belief about X may differ from yours about X, and it's not irrational that it does or doesn't.

I agree that reality must be obeyed, but in moral philosophy there is little reality so externally observable as the biochemical toxicity or anaphylaxis of blueberries. So saying that blueberry allergy is simultaneously an objective reality and a legitimately varying property among people is absolutely true. But it is also rather inapplicable to ethics. Ethical systems tend to boil down to the abduction: "I am a person. I feel X. Joe is also a person. Therefore Joe must also feel X." That's defensible for certain values of X, but not for all important values of X. No one has yet come up with a good line of reasoning that the "universal" Xes arise via a different mechanism from the legitimately varying X. So at this point it's favorable to say that the universally agreed-upon Xes arise from the same subjectivity as the others, and agree only by accident.

[Jason]

jayutah said:

That statue isn't on your front lawn Jay, unless you live at the Gilgal Garden.

Darn. Busted.

I live about 10 minutes' walk from Gilgal Garden.

I've never actually been through the Garden - I've just driven by it now and then. Frankly it kind of wierds me out.

[Jason]

You're basically right, Joe, Jay and I were using different definitions of "subjective" and I actually agree with most of Jay's points about how the absolute ethical requirement does vary with the circumstances of an individual. The parable of the talents is an excellent illustration of this for the religiously inclined.

Shouldn't an ethical system not be "Joe feels like X is the right choice" but "Joe should do X because it is the right choice"?

[JayUtah]

Frankly it kind of wierds me out.

It creeps out a lot of people. Joseph Smith as a sphinx doesn't work for me: artistically or theologically. But there's something haunting and compelling about the sculptures that keeps me going back. Plus it has an assembly pavilion with a translucent roof that makes for excellent portrait photography lighting.

For the archeological record: Gilgal Garden (now Gilgal Park) is a 1-2 acre plot in the center of a block in the 10th ward district of Salt Lake. It contains monumental sculptures made from 1940 to 1960 centered on LDS religious themes. Flagstones are scattered throughout the plot on which are etched passages from scripture and hymnody.

The artist was an LDS stone mason and one-time bishop of the LDS 10th Ward (whose buildings share the block). He devised a method of sculpting using an oxyacetylene torch that gives the sculptures a unique finish and sheen.

The thematic and artistic aspects of the sculptures are sometimes disconcerting. It's best to consider it a labor of love on the part of the individual artist, who had deep religious belief. It should probably be emphasized that it has never been officially sanctioned or acknowledged by the LDS church.

It was in private hands for many years, open only occasionally to the public. However it was routinely trespassed and sometimes vandalized, so it was finally made a part of the Salt Lake City Parks department. The Salt Lake Garden Club maintains the grounds as a showpiece, so even if the sculpture creeps you out, the gardens are beautiful and very well kept.

It's a marked place in Google Earth, if you want to find it.

I am fairly indifferent to the sculptures, but I find it to be an excellent enduring example of quiet urban space. It's a nice, secluded place to go for a picnic or a stroll.

[JayUtah]

Shouldn't an ethical system not be "Joe feels like X is the right choice" but "Joe should do X because it is the right choice"?

That would be an excellent ethical system as soon as you can explain why X is the right choice in a way that everyone undersatnds and agrees with. That's where the aggravating problem in ethics lies.

[Jason]

If truth were conditional upon everyone agreeing with it then there would be no truth.

[JayUtah]

Is this the part where I quote Pontius Pilate?

There's one part of moral philosophy where you wrangle with the question, "Is X the right choice?" There's another part that wrangles with, "Is Y the right way to think about whether X is the right choice?" Another part tries to answer, "If X is right, is it further right for one person to compel another to do X?" and the corollary: "If someone doesn't do X, is it right for me to do Z in retaliation?"

The practical impossibility of getting everyone to agree on any of these questions is what makes this an ongoing Great Debate. Unfortunately, fervently wishing for there to be a self-existing ruler according to which right conduct can be measured doesn't make it pop into being such that everyone can be held subject to it without difficulty. Although it's perfectly okay for you to conduct your life according to your belief that such a ruler exists and that it has certain properties. The presumption of self-existent truth is entirely valid for some problems in ethics.

[Joe Durnavich]

Shouldn't an ethical system not be "Joe feels like X is the right choice" but "Joe should do X because it is the right choice"?

I think a moral code functions something like a Travel Guide to Italy. The guide doesn't compel me to action. It informs me about the actions I would have to take to achieve such-and-such an objective. From it, I can learn how to travel internationally, how to exchange currency, local customs, restaurants, hotels, entertainment, points of interest, etc. It also may suggest travel itineraries. If I am in Rome for only 1 day, and I have an interest in ancient history, it may lay a plan that has worked well for many other people. It may rate restaurants and hotels based on the advice of experienced reviewers. The ratings will apply more-or-less well to me, but like reading Roger Ebert's movie reviews, I learn to what extent I can trust him.

I don't think it makes sense to say “X is the right choice” all by itself. It is only in the context of achieving some end that the notions of right and wrong apply. To vacation in Italy, Joe should get a passport because it is the right choice. (Why should Joe vacation in Italy? Because he hasn't had a vacation in a while, is stressed out from work, and is driving everyone crazy.) (And no, I am not going to Italy, but it would get me out of your hair for a while...)

[Joe Durnavich]

I agree that reality must be obeyed, but in moral philosophy there is little reality so externally observable as the biochemical toxicity or anaphylaxis of blueberries.

If the reality of moral consequences wasn't readily observable, then our moral choices wouldn't matter. We wouldn't notice much practical difference between a communist economy and a capitalist one. With all the media exposure, the consequences of Senator Craig's bathroom shenanigans to himself, his family, and his party are going to be observable by local star systems in the coming years.

The LM guides itself to a safe touchdown because it continually monitors positional feedback and makes corrective maneuvers. We do that too not only in our interactions with each other, but with political and legal systems as well. It's far from perfect, and not very pretty, but here and there, and from time to time, we advance to reasonably comfortable living conditions.

Your immediate neighborhood sounds quite pleasant. That is not the default state of affairs. You all had to work for that by being observant and sensitive to the needs of others. There is feedback available that you can be sensitive and responsive to.

So saying that blueberry allergy is simultaneously an objective reality and a legitimately varying property among people is absolutely true.

But it is also rather inapplicable to ethics. Ethical systems tend to boil down to the abduction: "I am a person. I feel X. Joe is also a person. Therefore Joe must also feel X." That's defensible for certain values of X, but not for all important values of X. No one has yet come up with a good line of reasoning that the "universal" Xes arise via a different mechanism from the legitimately varying X. So at this point it's favorable to say that the universally agreed-upon Xes arise from the same subjectivity as the others, and agree only by accident.

I'm not clear yet on why all the stress on the “universal” in regards to ethics.

Jason may be a little bit country, and Jay may be a little bit rock-and-roll, but that doesn't leave us at a total loss as how to practically manage this diversity. It is an argument that legal and political systems should be as liberal as possible. At a personal level, I know which radio station to have on in the car if I am driving one to the airport.

[Jason]

Can I be rock-and-roll instead of country? I don't much care for country music.

[Jason]

Jay stresses "universal" because it applies to whether or not morality can be considered to be objective. To some extent objective=universal. Things like physical and mathmatical laws hold universally, and are termed objective precisely because people everywhere can test them and come up with the same results.

[JayUtah]

No, universal is a precise term in moral philosophy meaning unanimous agreement or applicability. Something that is objective ought therefore to be universal, but universality isn't proof of objectivity or equivalent to it.

[JayUtah]

The LM guides itself to a safe touchdown because it continually monitors positional feedback and makes corrective maneuvers. We do that too not only in our interactions with each other, but with political and legal systems as well.

Yes, but not nearly as well as a lunar module. A guidance system is only as good as the fidelity and congruence of its sensors. Give me eight inches of duct tape and I can make any guidance system think it's doing the right thing when in fact it's heading for certain death. A guidance system pits itself against a largely deterministic environment -- the physical world. Morality pits us against other moral agents. A guidance system doesn't negotiate with the laws of physics. It either obeys them or kills its passengers. Moral agents negotiate amongst themselves to find a mutually beneficial compromise.

That's what makes moral questions interesting.

The question "Is X the right choice?" is the stepping-stone. The fun questions are the ones that precede and follow it. More important is "How do we go about deciding whether X is the right choice?" And once we have agreed upon that and come to a conclusion, "X is the right choice," then we have to wonder what to do with the consequences of people not doing X. If we establish a responsibility to do X, then is there a basis for enforcement?

You all had to work for that by being observant and sensitive to the needs of others. There is feedback available that you can be sensitive and responsive to.

Agreed. And what specific equilibrium works for my neighborhood doesn't work for East Millcreek or for Rose Park or for some other neighborhood. They will arrive at their own local neighborhood rules that suit them and their circumstances. There is a moral imperative in my household, in my neighborhood, in the various political boundaries that surround me, and among the whole human race. The larger the group, the more liberal the moral imperative.

[Jason]

That's about what I meant - that something objective should be universal in the sense that anyone with the right means can test it and come to the same conclusion.
And I would agree that universal does not neccesarily mean objective, although since it is a necessary condition for objectivity the presence of universality may imply objective reality.