The Messy Objective/Subjective Distinction

BionicDance (and many others) have been up in arms on the question of whether ethics is objective or subjective. The problems is a lot harder than it's being given credit for, not the least of which because the distinction between objective and subjective is far from clear cut.

Nagel's "The View From Nowhere": http://www.amazon.com/View-Nowhere-Thomas-Nagel/dp/0195056442/ref=sr_1_1?s=bo...

Korsgaard's "Sources of Normativity":
http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Normativity-Christine-M-Korsgaard/dp/052155960X...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• metaethics
• Plato
• Aristotle
• Nagel
• Korsgaard

[threeofwands]

I think one way of saying part of your point is that nothing in the realm of discourse is mind independent. But there are definitely elements of that discourse that are objective (such as the price of a loaf of bread on any given day).

I hope to read someday a strenuous argument for basing morality on sentiment. Not that I agree with that but I've just never seen a forceful argument for it.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@threeofwands "I've just never seen a forceful argument for it."

Check out Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments", books 2 & 3 of Hume's "Treatise of Human Nature", or more recently, Jesse Prinz's "The Emotional Construction of Morals."

[OnionTrollsAlliance]

What bugs me is when people confuse "objective" with "in all cases", as in: "'murder is objectively wrong.'

'Oh yeah, what about self-defense?'." Aargh!!

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@OnionTrollsAlliance Self-defense isn't really considered murder. 'Murder' typically means something like 'unjustified killing.' On that definition, murder is wrong in all case, but simply by fiat. But 'killing is objectively wrong' is clearly not true, even if one is a moral objectivist.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@RickTheDogged "To put it more plainly - you lack humility."

I said repeatedly throughout this video that I wasn't claiming BD was wrong, that I didn't pretend to have the answers, that the problem is really hard to fully understand and the first step in addressing it is to respect that complexity. How on earth do you get arrogance out of that? Especially when you contrast me with BD, who rather arrogantly pronounces that her answer is not only right, but obvious. I'm baffled by your charge.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@MrWonkoSane "you pedantic ass."

There's the spirit of dispassionate reason that elevates the level of discourse in Western society. Thank you, good sir, for embodying the noblest traditions of thought since Socrates.

"I've already left unsubbed from your channel"

My heart weeps for the loss of true open-minded, clear thinking gentleman. I don't know how I will find it within me to go on in your absence.

[TheCelticChimp]

@2Jax

I think that is the real moral challenge. Accepting that something is immoral on the basis of evidence rather than personal intuition.

[2Jax]

@TheCelticChimp No, that's not what I meant by the cross over point. The expression "I am in two minds about..." is when two competing desires are weighed up against each other. Like: should human well-being take priority over the human race existing? I think Sam Harris failed when he defined morality as a single goal.

What I meant is a bit like when you are first learning to play an instrument. At first it's really hard and takes a lot of effort but then you suddenly get better

[2Jax]

@TheCelticChimp Indeed, I think conscious and subconscious are 2 sides of the same coin and one couldn't exist without the other. That is to say: they are 2 aspects of the same thing.

CBT is about changing the way you feel about something and so (I believe) you can change the way you morally feel about something. I think morality is all about feelings in that: if you are told something is wrong but don't feel it, it's not morally wrong to you.

[TheCelticChimp]

@2Jax

....guarantees that conscious and subconsious will be influenced by each other. There are limits on how much change is possible but given the nature of our neural architecture, some change is certainly possible and making use of that feedback mechanism you describe is a sensible approach. I do think there is too much distinction is made between conscious and subconsious. The former being not much more than our experience of the summation of the later.

[TheCelticChimp]

@2Jax

When you are at the cross over point you decribe; I suspect that is the source of the expression "I am in two minds about...". I think the saying is a lot closer to the neurological reality that most people expressing it suspect. Indeed, I think it is fair to say we are a collection of minds most of the time.

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy works by the mechanism you describe in yout first paragraph above. It seems to me that the enless feedback mechism that is thinking pretty much

[2Jax]

@TheCelticChimp The complexity I was refurring to is the way our subconscious has a large influence in our decision making but we can change our subconscious through repetitive conscious practice (habit changing).

But there is a cross over point where an old habit and a mutually exclusive new one have the same amount of subconscious influence. Up to this point the new habbit was difficult, as you had to fight your subconscious, but from this point onwards it gets steadily easier

[TheCelticChimp]

@2Jax

Ah wait, I see now what you are referring to.

I just meant, partially in jest, that humans are not nearly so complex as we like to give ourselves credit for. At least, I have never seen a good account of the subconscious/conscious interplay that seemed particularly complex to me. It looks to me mostly like the competing of various, usually very straight forward desires. Our conscious summation of these desire inputs is usually convoluted and confused but not expecially complex.

[TheCelticChimp]

@2Jax

What are you referring to?

I'd be happy to try to explain my reasoning.

[2Jax]

@TheCelticChimp Why would you say that and give no explanation as to your reasonings?

It's like saying "I think you're wrong and I'm not saying why".