In the context of acheiving a goal, some actions are better than others, and there is nothing wrong with finding a best one.
For the record, I do consider mself a radical subjectivist. Goals, means, and ends are things that exist in our minds and with our evaluations to the world around us. That puts them squarely in the world of the subjective.
Furthermore, you’re going to have to explain how you are not in the world of some form of Platonism where there is some “ideal” that is dictating this. I think this may be where the confusion is lying in the conversation. The “best”, would simply exist “for our purposes”, or something similar to that notion.
You say “there is always context”
With that line, how are you seperating yourself from our position?
Come on John, you’ve been here long enough to know that traditionaly moral absolutists are the stronger current on here and that moral subjectivists are most times in the minority.
There are positive and normative statements. If the statement you asked me to consider was not a normative statement, then it was a positive statement. You asserted that it was not a normative statement. This means you were asserting it was a positive statement. It turns out that it was a normative statement after all, but that doesn’t change the fact that you were asserting it was a positive statement.
Anyway, in the context of achieving goals, “better” and “best” are still subjective. The only way you might be able to twist it into a positive statement is if you state your subjective criteria for your goals. So, you might say, “I want to go to NYC.” Okay, what’s the “best” way to get there? You could fly in a plane. You could drive a car. You could take a train. You could bike there. You could walk. What’s the “best” way?
Okay, so now we clarify what your goal is. You say your goal is really, “I want to go to NYC the fastest way possible.” Okay. So I guess it’s the plane. But now it’s just too expensive. Okay, so your goal is modified yet again, “I want to go to NYC the fastest way possible within my financial means.” Okay, so now we have to examine your car. Well, there is the matter of gas and wear and tear on your car. Now let’s look at the train ticket. Okay, but are those still within your financial means? Maybe. But what if you want to save more money so that when you get to NYC you can spend more? So now it’s the bike. But wait! How are you going to carry all your stuff that you buy in NYC back home? So, maybe you bike to NYC and buy a train ticket back?
You have all sorts of means to achieving your ends. And these means are rated in all sorts of different ways. There might be time efficient means, there might be financially efficient means, there might be fun efficient means (huh? well I guess you could say means that are more fun for you), etc. What are the best ways to achieve your ends? It’s all subjective. It depends upon your ends and how you rate your means.
Nobody rates their means and ends in the same way. These are all subjective. You might be able to say that you consider X means more fun than Y means, so X means is better to achieve end Z. But so what? This is all in your opinion. You think X is more fun for you. Not objectively more fun.
Now, again, you’ll say that I am introducing the word “objective” where you don’t want to talk about it. But you were the one who is saying that these are not normative statements (and therefore they are positive statements). And if you believe that these are not objective, why the hell are you disagreeing with me?
I have confused nothing, thank you very much. Physics is a positive subject. Physics is the study of how things are. Morality is not a positive subject. It is not a subject of how things are. It is a subject of what people consider to be right and wrong.
You are very confused about this subject. You don’t know that practicing everyday will be more conducive to being a successful musician. For that matter, what is a successful musician? Answer me that, and then we’ll talk.
I don’t know if I can easily answer this. I certainly agree when you say:
“Goals, means, and ends are things that exist in our minds and with our evaluations to the world around us.”
I think the difference is the conclusions we draw from this. This is a kind of lengthy speech by Long, but it does a good job of explaining the position I hold. I guess in a quick answer: I think you can accept the quote above without being committed to a position of ethical subjectivism or ethical nihilism.
What are you talking about? Yes, I was asserting that the statement I made was a positive one. You disagree. So what?
No, they aren’t. If it was a subjective manner, then the best way to acheive a goal would be entirely a matter of what the person aiming at the goal believes – but this is absurd. We are both trying to get to NYC, and you think the best way to get there is to drive, and I think the best way to get there is to stand on my roof and flap my arms. Despite my beliefs that flapping my arms will get me there, it just won’t. Your means are better suited for the goal.
And again, this isn’t subjective, you’re just changing the goal. If I want to get to NYC for as cheap as possible, then some means will be better than others. If I want to get to NYC as quickly as possible, then some other means might be better. This isn’t even a contraversial opinion, this is straight out of Mises.
Objective and subjective are not synonymous with positive and normative, so I’m not sure what you are saying here. I also don’t believe in an objective-subjective dichotomy, so I disagree with you when you attribute the objective to my position simply because I disagree with the subjective.
This is frustrating. On the one hand, you are right because every ethical theory put forward was put forward by someone, and in that sense, is an expression of what they believed. However, people like Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Bentham, Mill, etc. were not simply expressing their opinions, they were trying to say what really is right and wrong.
There’s no reason to resort to nitpicking every little thing like this, its just being argumentative for the sake of it. I do know that practicing everyday is more conducive to becoming a successful musician than not practicing at all, FOR THE MOST PART.
How about this example:
“If I want to lose weight, I ought to exercise and eat a healthy diet.” You know damn well that this is a true statement without needing me to define how much weight, what kind of exercise and what kind of diet. Now, that being said, it’s possible to lose weight without doing those things. I could starve myself, or catch a stomach virus. But exercise and diet is better than those things IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW PEOPLE DESIRE TO LOSE WEIGHT.
Haven’t gotten to the Long video yet, I wont reply again until I see it.
I don’t think anyone denies there is a certain logic to success. It is a very Weberian concept, and if that’s the case I don’t think a Max Weber “Ideal Type” is going to go in the direction you seem to be implying (he was a “nihilist” too).
Anyway,
Assuming these are not useless tautology, do you think there is a differnece between these statements?
“If I want to lose weight, I ought to exercise and eat a healthy diet.”
“If I don’t care about my weight, I do as I do”
“If I want to have fun, I ought to play video games”
“If I want to not have fun, I ought to flog myself”
“If I don’t care one way or the other about fun, I do as I do”
It’s one or the other, but not both. And it most certainly was not a positive statement about reality. You are making a suggestion as to what you think is the optimal course of action. The only objective fact in that statement is that you believe X to be the optimal means to Y. But that does not mean the X is the most “optimal” means to Y.
Flapping your arms is not a means of travel to NYC. You are making a category error.
Some options might be cheaper than others, and if your only goal is to find the cheapest option, then one could say that the cheaper an option, the better it is for your goal. But this does not contradict what I’ve been saying. The only objective fact you can determine is that you believe X to be the better/best means to achieving Y. These do not translate to anyone else. I believe we are in agreement on this point, as you have stated that you consider these things to be contexualized for each individual.
But the problem lies here:
You said you agreed with this statement. There are no objective values. Values are subjective. You may be able to make objective statements about the means to an end, but the end is subjective. We do not all share the same ends. There may be certain biological facts about humans, that we must eat and drink to survive. But that doesn’t translate to any objective morality.
As I said before, positive statements are statements about what is, and normative statements are statements about what ought to be. Here are some definitions of objective and subjective for you. Objective claims are claims about reality. You cannot claim that morality is objective. Morals do not exist. They are not real. They are abstract. Physics is abstract. But the difference between physics and morals is that physics has to do with explaining the world as it is. Morals are about what peoplebelieve to be right and wrong. They do not describe the world as it is. So, yes, it is true that objective and subjective are not synonymous with positive and normative, but morals are neither objective nor positive. Physics is at least positive, even if it is abstract.
Yes, they were trying to make it a positive subject, and they never did. Economics is a positive subject. It describes the world as it is. Morality is not a positive subject. It is a normative subject. And it is necessarily abstract. It is not objective. It is subjective. It is all perception. I still feel very strongly about my view on morality, but I can at least recognize that it is not some objective and positive fact about reality.
This is not notpicking. Firstly, I did not make a claim about practicing everyday and not practicing at all. Second, there is not much we can talk about until you define what is a successful musician, and that may not line up with my view of what a successful musician is.
Your belief as to what constitutes a successful musician is representative of your own subjective values. There is no objective measure of “successful musician”. Was Yehudi Menuhin a successful musician? He was one of the greatest child prodigies of the 20th century, but he lost most of skill when he became an adult. Yet he was still one of the most popular violinists of his day. Was he successful? He was a rich musician, but he was not a very skilled musician. The fact is that if you believe he was a successful musician, that is your own subjective value. If you believe he was not a successful musician, that is your own subjective value. So what is the best method to becoming a successful musician? Marrying rich? Practicing a lot? Marketing yourself?
Most definitely not nitpicking.
This is absolutely not true, whatsoever. Perhaps you have heard of people who drink some ridiculous concoction and essentially starve themselves for a week so as to lose a few pounds. Some of the actresses in Hollywood use this method for quick weight loss. Considering their ends, it is most certainly the “best” means.
That you disagree with their ends only shows how much of this is subjective.
weight loss can be objectively measured etc, while having “fun” is subjective and cannot be measured..
That question was directed at Mika. I am trying to see the context he is comming from. There are sevral answers I can think of to this BTW. So there really isn’t any need for anyone to try to “guess” what I am getting at, as I have nothing in mind. This is a fishing expedition to try to help the conversation along,while tring to keep the ball in Mika’s court.
so would this mean people that read his book would prefer to become athiest and anarchist or prefer to throw the book in the trash? that anyone who does not follow the book and see it as a success is anti upb? if he can’t convice people who are already athiest and anarchist that his book is a success, then how will the book be expected to convince thiest statists? is it UPB that people don’t accept truth? UPB that people don’t accept Stefan?
Below, please find a summation of the core argument for morality.
1. Reality is objective and consistent.
2. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.
3. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.”
4. Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.”
5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.”
6. “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.
7. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.
10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”
11. As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by
empirical evidence.
12. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are
When someone is trying to win my mind, what I’m interested in are his arguments. The fact that he is or was an actor, or “a narcissist,” is not germane … but, I realize that “that’s just me.” People are different, and “I sorta like the diversity part.”
I don’t think there’s a difference between the weight loss and fun statements in form or type, but whether or not we would say each of them are true would come down to different criteria. I mean, if you really hate video games, they might not be very much fun. But just as in the weight loss statement, there is an actual relationship between having fun and video games (or whatever it is that you find fun). i don’t think we have different opinions on this.
Also, check my last statement to gotlucky below. I think it might help you see what I’m trying to say.
gotlucky,
What if I believed it was? You said that “If you want to acheive goal Y, then you ought to do action X” is a subjective claim. So I said “if you want to travel to NYC, then you ought to flap your arms.” Now, if this is a subjective claim, there isn’t really any problem so long as I believe that flapping your arms is a good way to get to NYC. But that’s absurd. We both know that arm flapping won’t get you there, despite anyone’s belief otherwise.
And this is the problem with saying that anything is subjective. It doesn’t tell us anything useful about what’s going on.
For the millionth time, I don’t claim that morality is objective. I am rejecting the entire objective-subjective dichotomy. I am saying that morality is not subjective. But even if I did claim that morality is objective, you aren’t presenting an argument here. You just keep asserting that morals aren’t real and that there are no objective values. How do you know? I’m not even disagreeing with you right now. I just want to know how you know that you are correct.
And the reason why I am not claiming that morality is objective, is because it doesn’t say anything at all.
Just say what you mean! Morals do not exist, but they are abstract and subjective? If something doesn’t exist, how can it have qualities?
Just to drive my point home: If I believed my neighbor’s dog’s howling made the dog a successful musician, would that make it so? If not, then its not subjective. And, of course, the answer is no; it would not be the case. A successful musician is a musician that is successful. What that means exactly is determined by context and use, NOT by my own opinion. If Wittgenstein taught us anything, its this.
It’s a category error, regardless of what you believe. Flapping arms != travelling.
Not just anything is subjective. If I said otherwise, then I was mistaken when I said so. Ends are subjective. Means can be evaluated, but considering how fluid ends are, rating means is not going to be of much help. Any of us who are alive do want to eat in order to continue living, but our ends are not just “to eat”. Some people don’t eat meat, for instance. So their end is not just “to eat”. I seriously doubt if anybody can truly have the same identical ends, however similar they may appear.
And just to clarify, the reason that statement is subjective was because the ends are subjective.
Objective is mind-independant. Subjective is one’s perspective. Morals do not exist outside of the mind. They are mind dependant. Values are mind-dependant. That is what subjectivity is. Values are not inherent in any object. People (subjects) value objects. It makes no sense to talk of morals as existential objects. One can only talk of morals in the context of one’s own beliefs or another’s beliefs.
That is subjectivity. Morals can only be subjective, by definition.
Morals do not exist as objects. I have been saying this all along. I have not stated otherwise. But things can exist in logical space without existing in physical space. Morality is an abstract subject, just as math is. But math is not a subjective subject. It is not mind-dependant. 2+2=4 regardless of the subject (person) in question.
I’ll link to the wiki on abstract and concrete in my edit, as I don’t want to get wait-listed for my post.
Language is intersubective. The concepts conveyed can be objective or subjective. For instance, consider the word “dog”. Dog is an abstract thought, however your specific pet dog is a concrete object. But dogs exist independant of one’s mind. Dogs are not subjective, even if the word used to convey the thought “dog” is intersubjective.
John, the examples are the first two quotesin my post.
I’m using a phrase from Hamlet to highlight the insincerity, or at least the dubitable sincerity, expressed in your two statements.
The fact that you ask me (twice now) to produce something that already exists and was directed specifically to you, tends to reinforce your appearance of insincerity.
Also, it’s a niggling matter. Why the fascination with it?
I just don’t think you’ve been entirely sincere, and I simply pointed it out.
I mean, it’s not as though I’m calling you “a narcissist” or anything.
