Morality: My Take

---

Intro:

I used to be a moral nihilist/relativist, but now I'm a moral subjectivist. I may be swayed into objective morality, but we'll see..this page is subject to change as I learn more.

---

[ update!! ]

Moral Subjectivism

-by: [Dil*]

Belief that morality is based on individual values. Belief that individual values (preferences) are completely subjective (arbitrary to the each person). There are no facts of values like there are facts of science. Science describes the external reality, science describes what is out there. Science, essentially, describes what 'is', while morality deals with what 'ought' to be. Morality deals with behaviour within reality, while science describes what 'is' in reality.

Moral subjectivism is not the same as 'broad' moral relativism, for one fine point. Moral relativism describes morality in a collectivist manner, and what 'is' acceptable is what the collect (society, culture, or what have you) think is acceptable. This is absolute hogwash, because not everyone within society has the same ideas about what is right/wrong. Moral relativism views the 'collective' morality as the correct morality to follow for a person living within that collective. This mostly true, but Reformer's Dilemma punches a huge gaping hole in this idea:

The Reformer's Dilemma:
1. If CR is an acceptable normative theory, then every moral reformer is mistaken.
2. It's not the case that every moral reformer is mistaken.
3. Therefore, it's not the case that CR is an acceptable normative theory. [1,2 MT]"

The Cultural Differences Argument (the arguement that got defeated by The Reformer's Dilemma)

1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. If different societies have different moral codes, then CR is an acceptable normative theory.
3. Therefore, CR is an acceptable normative theory. [1,2 MP]


Moral subjectivism does not fall apart due to The Reformer's Dilemma, thus it is a theory undefeated in my eyes.

---

I consider Utilitarianism to be a decent system to follow. Read more about it..yourselves. It's advocating a form of moral objectivism that is very hard to defend.

Moral subjectivism states that morality is determined on an individual's values. Individual values=individual preferences. Preferences are not equal to beliefs/opinions. That's why I disagree with people who say morality is a mere opinion. Preference can be based upon beliefs, but not always.

---->But!

We still haven't found the objective system of morality. Morality can be objective given a set, of set values. But if there are no real objective values (correct preferences to hold), there can never really be an objective morality. There are no objective facts about how to behave in reality. Some libertarians argue for an objective morality and objectivists claim to have found the objective morality, but the key difference between so-called facts about morality and facts about reality is that scientific facts are true no matter what, because science describes. While morality subscribes. (tells us how to behave in reality as opposed to describing what reality is). There is no set/correct way to behave in reality, therefore there is no set/correct prescription. Anyone claiming otherwise better bring forth the meaning of life while their at it.

Visit some links I'm going to provide for gaining your own wisdom about morality. The libertarian link has an excellent arguement for objective morality. You can read it and argue against the moral subjectivists like me.

outlines stances: http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html

libertarian article on objective morality (claiming facts about morality): http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux8.html (this link is soo good I almost converted to being a moral objectivist)

2006

>>dilandau's philosophy
>>cultural/moral relativism is bullshit