Subjective Moral Persuasion Redux
[This is what yesterday’s post would have looked like were it not for a ridiculous glitch but instead you got to see my notes while I saw the following posted: The unanticipated return to my discussion of morality from two weeks ago. Earlier posts: 1, 2, 3]
I’m sometimes told, usually by theists, that if morality is subjective then there’s no reason for anyone to value what anyone else has to say about morality or change their minds about morals issues. However, anecdotally—read an almost worthless observation—I’ve had far more success in changing minds about specific moral issues than I have had in discussions about more broad values. In fact this success far outpaces my observed success in getting any believer in pseudoscience or religious fanatic to recognize the epistemic flaws in their reasoning.
This could be taken as the obvious effect of it being more difficult to get someone to dispense with peripheral rather than foundational beliefs. However I think this also has something to say about the difficultly in explaining logical arguments. The more abstract and detached an argument is from what any person finds intuitively plausible the harder it will be to change someone’s mind, even in situations where the answer is empirically verifiable. With moral arguments I find you are actually able to largely avoid, or at the least temporarily sidestep, these difficulties.
When I’m making a specific moral argument I’m far more able to (ab)use specific thought experiments in order highlight the intuitive appeal of my conclusion over their current conclusion.* For example, being a new vegetarian I’m often asked why I don’t eat meat to which my reply is “Why is bestiality wrong?” Once the person has reasoned through why they believe it is, usually because of unnecessary harm and the lack of consent in bestiality, I’m able to trap them I’m able to get them to admit that to be consistent the same rules mean they shouldn’t eat meat.** The fact that their preferences for logical consistency and reducing harm are subjective does not in the least mean the person has no reason to change their mind.
Subjective morality does not mean forever dispensing with moral persuasion, only that you must appeal to some value the person already has. Far from being a limitation of subjective morality, this is the only way there can be moral persuasion at all. Of course appealing to shared values won’t settle all disputes but being unable to settle all disputes is nothing like the claim that with subjective morality no one would have reason to change their minds even in light of new evidence or information.
_____________________
*It should be noted that my success with moral thought experiments has been such that I’ve developed an affinity to use thought experiments more in other areas. In any event one should beware not to abuse thought experiments such that they become intuition pumps which lead to incorrect answers.
**Luckily for me and the sake of the argument I’ve not yet come across anyone who is ok with bestiality. When that day comes, while acknowledging their logical consistency, I’m probably just going to flee in horror.
