Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

asaris · 09-08-2004, 10:24 AM

It's always seemed to me that morality can't be entirely subjective. People like to make moral judgements, not just about their own actions, but also about the actions of others. To some extent, this can be explained away by saying that this is self-interested -- that morality is a tool of the weak to keep down the strong. But this doesn't quite explain everything. Even in cases where we can keep the harm to oneself the same, we can see different reactions. Consider the cases of 1) a man who intentionally trips you on the subway and 2) a man who accidentally trips you on the subway. Our reactions differ greatly depending on which of these two cases is actual, but the harm to us is the same.

Now, if morality is subjective, it's dependant entirely on our own judgements for its validity, right? But if we use it to judge, not only our own actions, but also the actions of others, we must be presupposing that, somehow, morality has universal validity. Intersubjective accounts might seem more plausible, but either they fall into the same problems as the subjective accounts (we cannot judge the actions of anyone outside of our own intersubjective circle) or, if the circle is drawn large enough, they are indistinguishable from objective accounts.

Why do we want to be able to judge other peoples actions? Well, for me, its the good old liberal humanist reason. I hate evil in the world, and believe we need to work to stop it. But how can we be acting justly when we try to stop evil if what is good is only good because of our own agreement on it? For an example: if good is subjective, how can we say that Saddam was wrong in gassing his own people?

09-08-2004, 10:24 AM	#16 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	It's always seemed to me that morality can't be entirely subjective. People like to make moral judgements, not just about their own actions, but also about the actions of others. To some extent, this can be explained away by saying that this is self-interested -- that morality is a tool of the weak to keep down the strong. But this doesn't quite explain everything. Even in cases where we can keep the harm to oneself the same, we can see different reactions. Consider the cases of 1) a man who intentionally trips you on the subway and 2) a man who accidentally trips you on the subway. Our reactions differ greatly depending on which of these two cases is actual, but the harm to us is the same. Now, if morality is subjective, it's dependant entirely on our own judgements for its validity, right? But if we use it to judge, not only our own actions, but also the actions of others, we must be presupposing that, somehow, morality has universal validity. Intersubjective accounts might seem more plausible, but either they fall into the same problems as the subjective accounts (we cannot judge the actions of anyone outside of our own intersubjective circle) or, if the circle is drawn large enough, they are indistinguishable from objective accounts. Why do we want to be able to judge other peoples actions? Well, for me, its the good old liberal humanist reason. I hate evil in the world, and believe we need to work to stop it. But how can we be acting justly when we try to stop evil if what is good is only good because of our own agreement on it? For an example: if good is subjective, how can we say that Saddam was wrong in gassing his own people? __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche