Moral Subjectivism makes us ask if morality is just about what we feel is right?

 
Objective morality says the moral action is moral and the right thing to do because it really is the right thing.  In other words it describes reality.  It is reality that it is good to save a baby from a murderer. 

 

Subjective morality can be what you think is objective morality.  Subjective morality ideally is meant to fit moral facts but it often does not.  If somebody was brainwashed to think that the murderer was saving the baby from demons that are about to possess it forever then you cannot argue from the viewpoint of subjective morality that this person is wrong.  They are right in the sense that they are living up to the best light they have and sadly they have no better light.

 

Subjective morality can be another term for moral relativism where you only consider things moral because you feel like it - you deny that real morality matters.

 

Objective morality and subjective morality intertwine.  You subjectively decide to a degree what is morally right or morally wrong.  So you have to work out what the facts about what is objectively right and wrong are.  So you have to discover objective morality.  Sometimes what you think is an objective moral principle in fact is not - that is the subjective side at play.

 

You have to bring in some subjectivity when trying to learn what is morally right. 

 

How much?

 

A lot?

 

Approximately half and half?

 

A little?

 

Each moral situation will be different.  If you are under pressure to make a big moral decision the subjective will be stronger.  It depends.

 

Because of our psychology, the way we are, the subjective will be heavier than the objective.  The objective though not a mere theory is because of our fallibility and weakness treated as a theory by us and there is nothing we can do.  It is also objective morality that if we mistakenly think we should murder then it is a fact we should murder.  So objective morality is fact in principle but in practice it is not simple. 

 

Those who see God as all that matters as he is in a sense good and morality are fakes.  It is more about what they think and want than they let on.

 

Moral subjectivism, the theory that all rules about what is right and wrong are just made up but that it is immoral to break them, is frightfully wrong. It is incoherent for a start. It cannot be evil to break a pile of moral rules that are nonsense.
 
Moral subjectivists are only known when they admit what they are. There are millions of people out there who moralise and yet who do not believe in morality at all!
 
Moral subjectivists teach that if you are in a land where the law is that you must abuse a child then it is right to obey and wrong not to. If you go to a land where it is forbidden, it is wrong to do it. This is very sick. It cannot be wrong to flout an evil convention. The theory is saying that there is no right and wrong but that we should enslave ourselves to conventions. What is the point of having right and wrong if right doesn’t necessarily mean what is best for you? It cannot be as harmless to hurt a child as it is not to!  
 
Suppose praying to God is an evil act of superstition. You will not sin in this if you really think that prayer is holy and good and sensible. You would be serving evil but not deliberately so and you will not be doing bad. It comes down to your conscience. Religion usually advocates respect for conscience.
 
What we have read seems suspiciously like, "If you believe something you do is sinful then you are a sinner. It depends only on what you believe." This actually denies that there is such a thing as a moral law in your heart or that moral law is any use. It follows that even if there is such a thing as morality, as far as we are concerned we are not in touch with it and create our own subjective morality. If there is a morality, our morals as far as our perception and intentions go could be subjective.
 
It is a short step from freedom of conscience to PRACTICAL moral subjectivism. And it is a short step from PRACTICAL to ACTUAL.
 
With law, you are a thief and will be punished even if you are forced by starvation to steal. You can't say, "But my intention was to live not to steal. I am not a thief for I had no choice. I was forced." Moral law and civil law both demand that the breaker of the law must suffer. A law that has no penalty is not a law at all but a waste of time. Moral law means a person is to be judged as bad and wicked no matter what they say their intentions were. Moral subjectivism would say that it is unjust to punish a person in the name of justice. It denies that justice exists and then says it exists after all. The Moral Subjectivist tends to be selective in what moral rules he wants to consider subjective. Hypocrisy is her middle name.

I am most sure I exist than that other people do for I alone can experience what it is to be me. Moral subjectivists tend to go along with society's rules. This makes no sense for it is saying that people whose existence is less certain that your own have real or pretended convictions about what is right and wrong that supersede yours! Then again it can be answered that this objection does not work for ethics makes no sense anyway!
 
Moral subjectivists deny that progress exists. If morality is only in our imagination then when scientists eradicate cancer this is not progress but it is only change. They may as well not bother as bother.
 
Moral subjectivists say that nothing is objectively wrong in moral terms. It follows then that moral subjectivism cannot claim to be right. It says there is no objective morality and says that moral subjectivism is morally and objectively right - a contradiction.
 
Moral subjectivists take on an impossible burden of proof on themselves. Their subjectivism cannot meet this burden.
 
All forms of moral subjectivism are absurd but some forms are worse than others.
 
For example, it is sillier to say that God endorses your morality (when it is merely subjective) than to merely invent it yourself. It is accusing an all-wise God of madness. If this is an attempt to limit the invention of morality to God then it is really saying that God has the right to invent morality but we do not. That would imply that it is objectively wrong to disobey God's subjective morality. And as God is perceived and expressed through human interpretations and insights it would mean that one sect could say God wants babies murdered for fun and another could say that he wants babies worshipped as living saints. Sadly those who use God to justify the morality they have subjectively created are not going to admit their morality is subjective. If it is, there is nothing stopping you from lying that it is objective.
 
If morality is subjective, that is a hard truth to take.
 
You wouldn't want to make morality even more subjective than what it is. But morality is either subjective or it is not. So how can you make it more subjective? We are talking hypothetically. We are talking about those who would make it more subjective if they could. We are talking about an attitude.
 
Also, if you treat morality as subjective that is a pity but the more excuses and props you create in order to promote this morality the worse you are. This is the case if morality should not be seen as subjective but as real. It is hypothetically the case if morality truly is subjective.
 
If you make your own choices about morality and what it is, and decide that it is subjective you cannot be condemned. You had to choose something. It is contradictory to invent your morality and say it is real. But it is not evil or wrong if you have no alternative though it would be a necessary evil.
 
Now, if you take your morality from a subjective morality maker outside yourself such as God, that is trying to make the problem worse. You are subjectively judging God to be right anyway so what do you need him for? And you are also subjectively submitting to another subjective morality. You have two subjective whereas if you just make up your own mind and forget about obeying anybody you only have the one. And if your view that lying is wrong is just subjective, you are violating that view by saying that God represents and enforces real as opposed to subjective morality.

Many say, "Once you take God out of the equation, morality becomes a subjective matter. It is a matter of us making up the rules as we go along."

 

If you set up very persistent rules such as stealing being forbidden then the making it up as you go along is an exaggeration.   But in broad and long-term sense we do make up the rules.  Most people would say that does not matter.  If you want persistent rules that are as good as fixed or that are not fixed in principle but which nobody overthrows that is a sign you are not truly subjectivist.  We all sense that it is bad just to make out a moral principle is just a feeling.

 

A brother and sister having secret once off safe sex is frowned upon even if it blesses the rest of their lives. That example shows that moral judgement is more about how we feel than we let on. They are called sinners and immoral because of how we feel but it is us who are immoral for regarding fallible feelings as grounds for condemning others.

 

Subjectivism is very confused.

 

If people creating any rules is a problem, then we HAVE to believe in morality as a non-subjective reality OR ELSE!

Everybody surely does think that way.  How religion can tell you to believe morality is non-subjective or else and say it respects our free will is mind-boggling. Better a subjective morality than one you are forced or blackmailed to follow. If God gives you free will and then blackmails you to believe in morality as a reality what right has he to let you do evil and blame you? What right has he to say, "I am pure love and have to let people do wrong for I cannot force them to love me!" That is a lie and an excuse and insult to those who suffer and die. Both religion and the concept of God are based on an implicit threat - people don't mind for they imagine that is good for keeping people in line. But that does not make it right. A morality that is based on force not love is not a morality though it may be a convincing copy.

 

The need to care about and want objective moral values is different from the way you apply the values.  A morality can be needed but be full of poor content.  Having the right maths principle does not mean that what you with it will be okay. It could be objectively morally true that we need subjective moral values. Objective morality could decree that I must need subjective moral values and this will do for most of us will have the same values.  If  you are a subjectivist then you cannot expect people to believe you if you say you would not force your morals on anybody else.

 

Subjective morality is terrifying for it binds you and others to create moral obligations and duties and of course punishments based on feelings.  That is not freedom and it cannot give you freedom.  You can't be at the mercy of your own feelings or anybody else's.  Hegel said that the choice made the individual may be presented as free but is not very free at all for the person cannot pick and control the circumstances that demand the choice to be made. The choices will be in short supply.  So the subjectivist has to worry about that too!!!
 
Subjective morality has bad implications in the world and is hypothetically a monster as well.