dbO, in a blog post Comment on Subjective Morality gave a positive review of the following statement.
That’s the essential distinction. People almost always seem to think that if the basis of morality is subjective then its arbitrary and any set of values is as good as another.
However, there are two meanings of 'subjective'.
One states that mental states are an essential part of moral value - something I agree with. However, I still say that moral value is objective because mental states are a part of the real world - as much a part of the world as trees and flowers and chirping birds. Our statements about relationships between states of affairs and mental states are statements that are objectively true or objectively false - like any other scientific statement.
The other is that to change the moral value of X depends on the specific attitude that the agent has towards X. This latter interpretation makes the rightness or wrongness completely independent of X. The torturing of children for pleasure can be made right (permissible, good, even obligatory) merely by changing the agent's attitude towards the torturing of children for pleasure.
It is, on this account, a mere accident that it happens to be bad.
1 comment:
This latter interpretation makes the rightness or wrongness completely independent of X. The torturing of children for pleasure can be made right (permissible, good, even obligatory) merely by changing the agent's attitude towards the torturing of children for pleasure.
You're taking an extreme example which is difficult to argue on but I will attempt to.
The reason why the torturing of children for pleasure is considered wrong (not permissible, bad and punishable) by most has its roots in evolutionary apsects. It is an immoral action because the memetic evolution of humans has proven that empathy towards children provides a competitive advantage. This is why humans also feel empathy for other animal young, like puppies and kittens.
However, given a different environment and situaton, the torturing of children for pleaseure might have been good. I cannot visualize which environment that would be and what kind of lifeform would live in it, but I can imagine the possibility. Hell, some life forms eat their young.
On the other hand, in a more controversial moral issue, like abortion, you can easily seen how it can go either way given enough environmental push.
For example, lets say we have two competing medieval societies where in one abortion and birth control is allowed where on the other it is banned. These societies are hostile to each other. Given an abundant environment and equal technology (one where methods of abortion and birth control are known), it is obvious that the society where birth control is banned will have a competitive advantage over the other due to numbers. In an upcoming war, the society where birth control is banned wins and conquers the other, thereby forcing its pro-life stance on the defeated. 1000 years later, birth control is considered objectively immoral for everyone, even though the environment is not abundant anymore.
On a different situation though, where the initial environment is hostile and more mouths to feed equals lack of resources for all, the results are switched around.
In both end-situations, we can judge from our position that birth control is moral or immoral but it is irrelevant.
First of all because we are an outside observer with more knowledge than the ones we are observing and secondly because we have also inherited our morality as regards to birth control from our own society's memetic evolution.
Granted this is a very simplified example, but I hope it shows why subjective morality is not arbitrary.
Post a Comment