tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post4372472110101689330..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Desire-based Objective ValueRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-84215419806076157072021-07-23T14:15:41.632-04:002021-07-23T14:15:41.632-04:00It seems to me that if one doesn't have a pict...It seems to me that if one doesn't have a picture of selves as fully discrete and atomic entities, then there's room for a subjectivist desire-based theory that is about what <i>we</i> have reason to do (i.e., whatever satisfies more of our desires than it hinders) rather than an object desire-based theory that is about what <i>one</i> has reason to do.Kennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09588770173317316837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-54701981467430943212009-03-11T11:15:00.000-04:002009-03-11T11:15:00.000-04:00Well, maybe. But are there any better terms availa...Well, maybe. But are there any better terms available? We want to be able to talk about these ideas <I>somehow</I>; specifying exactly how we mean to interpret these evocative (if common) terms seems like it might be the best option we have.<BR/><BR/>(Perhaps I could have just said that philosophers often divide theories of value into those that treat desires as reasons vs. those that don't, whereas I think a more important distinction in this vicinity is between those that are ultimately grounded in perspectival considerations vs. those that aren't. But I'm not sure that's any clearer, and it could get long-winded after a while if there aren't any convenient labels available.)Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-91307813186977979292009-03-11T09:12:00.000-04:002009-03-11T09:12:00.000-04:00I have to say I'm rather suspicious about using th...I have to say I'm rather suspicious about using the terminology of subjectivism and objectivism. The terms have so many different usages that I feel that they are probably of little value. To say that something is subjective or objective seems to muddy the waters rather than saying anything illuminating.Ethics girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798099918612490108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-14593052694288493672009-03-09T11:40:00.000-04:002009-03-09T11:40:00.000-04:00I guess there are a couple of ways to interpret th...I guess there are a couple of ways to interpret that suggestion. On the strict interpretation, what's right or good is determined by some (<A HREF="http://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/08/red-pill-arbitrary-ethics.html" REL="nofollow">arbitrary</A>) explicit opinion -- effectively collapsing the distinction between belief and truth (or <A HREF="http://www.philosophyetc.net/2006/06/why-we-need-to-idealize-ethics.html" REL="nofollow">actual vs. ideal judgments</A>). I agree that this is an important distinction, though perhaps less interesting because the 'subjectivist' branch of it so clearly has nothing to recommend it.<BR/><BR/>On a looser interpretation, we understand the subjectivist as insisting that right/good is constructed (perhaps with some degree of idealization) out of someone's tacit commitments or deliberative standpoint -- which may or may not align with their explicit "say-so". This interpretation is equivalent to the definition offered in my post (at least if we assume that the relevant 'standpoint' is always that of the individual agent herself).Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-85780843198812010862009-03-09T09:37:00.000-04:002009-03-09T09:37:00.000-04:00I prefer the (possibly weaker) definition of subje...I prefer the (possibly weaker) definition of subjectivism - a subjectivist theory of ethics insists that what's right/good is dependent solely upon someone's 'say-so'. In the case of Divine Command Theory, for example, right/good is whatever God decides - the objectivist variation would be that God decides whatever he does because it's good.Thom Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00842876720820172673noreply@blogger.com