Addressing an argument by moral subjectivist.

[primemover]

Let me address the argument that because not everyone agrees on what ethics is it is subjective, (or sometimes worded), someone can chose or reject certain ethical systems in favor of another therefore ethical values are subjective.

I will do this by drawing a parallel.

Is the scientific method subjective? In other words, can the scientific method be whatever I want it to be? What if we take a poll and see what the majority thinks the scientific method is , is that what it is going to be? Of coarse not, the scientific method is not subjective. It is not subject to majority vote , emotional whim or authority. This is because existence has primacy over consciousness. One can embark on a quest for knowledge and freely chose not to employ the scientific method but we would not say that because someone can chose this that the scientific method is subjective. We can have an entire population on this planet and yet many argue that the principles of the scientific method are not correct . Some say that ESP or praying is a method of gaining knowledge. Using the reasoning from moral subjectivist and applying it to the scientific method, the scientific method must be subjective. It must be whatever we want it to be because no one agrees.

We can freely chose to embark on a quest for knowledge while not employing the principles of the scientific method, but WE ARE NOT FREE of the consequences reality will deal us when we employ methods other than the principles it embodies. Likewise , we are free to accept any code of ethics that comes along or that was passed down by society or by religion but we are not free to avoid the consequences reality will deal to us from choosing such systems.

The barometer for objectivity is NOT what one group, person or authority THINKS is correct. The barometer of objectivity is reality. Reality sets the terms no matter what man THINKS the case is.

Edited April 30, 2007 by primemover

[Daniel Barnes]

Primemover:

>Let me address the argument that because not everyone agrees on what ethics is it is subjective...

That argument is easily debunked, because it confuses cause and effect.

The situation is, as we discussed at length here recently, as decisions cannot be logically derived from facts (without smuggling in hidden assumptions), decisions, including ethical ones, always have a partly subjective element.

Hence some disagreement over ethical issues is inevitable. It also means that the individual must take responsibility for his choices, and cannot fob it entirely off on to some rulebook or abstract system.

[Dragonfly]

BTW, it is not "of coarse" but "of course". And it is to "choose"; "chose" is the imperfect. Please choose a less coarse course.

[primemover]

The situation is, as we discussed at length here recently, as decisions cannot be logically derived from facts (without smuggling in hidden assumptions), decisions, including ethical ones, always have a partly subjective element.

You are talking about Hume's is/ought? If you read Hume he did not say that you cannot go from is to ought, only that if you do it must be explained.

[Daniel Barnes]

>You are talking about Hume's is/ought? If you read Hume he did not say that you cannot go from is to ought, only that if you do it must be explained.

An explanation is not the same as a valid deduction.

[primemover]

>You are talking about Hume's is/ought? If you read Hume he did not say that you cannot go from is to ought, only that if you do it must be explained.

An explanation is not the same as a valid deduction.

Rather the Objectivist explanation is correct or not is another topic. The fact is that the is/ought situation is not a problem for the Objectivist ethics.

[Daniel Barnes]

Prime:

>The fact is that the is/ought situation is not a problem for the Objectivist ethics.

If you assert it, it must be true!

[primemover]

Prime:

>The fact is that the is/ought situation is not a problem for the Objectivist ethics.

If you assert it, it must be true!

no..go take a reading comprehension class then go read Hume and see what he says about it. Hume does not say that you can't derive ethical premises from facts.