If morality is subjective, there is nothing that promotes love over hate, peace over war, etc. apart from what we think. And so someone who thinks war is moral IS CORRECT under subjective morality, while another person who things the same war is immoral IS ALSO CORRECT.
What we think is good enough. We don’t need the approval of the universe to oppose hate or favor peace over war. We can act on our values. Why would I care at all if hate or war were objectively bad? Suppose moral realism was not true. Would you care any less about opposing war or hate? I’m an antirealist, and I doubt I care any less about anything of practical significance as a result.
If what we think is good enough, then what the person who believes war is more moral than peace’s thoughts are also good enough. Yet that creates a logical contradiction: Peace is more moral because you believe it, but war is more moral because Fred believes it. Who decides, and why?
There is no logical contradition with relativistic views of morality. These views don’t hold that if Alex thinks war is better than peace that “war is better than peace” is nonindexically true, while if Sam thinks war is worse htan peace that “war is not better than peace” is also nonindexically true. That would be a contradiction. Rather, relativistic views hold that moral claims contain an implicit indexical element that allows their truth to vary relative to the standards they are indexed to. So their statements would be better interpreted as:
Alex: “War is better than peace according to my standards.”
Sam: “War is better than peace according to my standards.”
Alex: “War is better than peace according to my standards.”
Sam: “War is better than peace according to my standards.” I am not talking about those statements. I am speaking of this scenario: Alex: “War with thhis nation at this time is better than peace according to my standards.”
Sam: “Peace with this nation at this time is better than war according to my standards.” You are right in saying that they aren’t contradictory. Instead they lead to incoherence which can lead to contradictory standards for the government that wants to decide. Again who decides? Is is moral to decide policy by focus group?
If morality is subjective, there is nothing that promotes love over hate, peace over war, etc. apart from what we think. And so someone who thinks war is moral IS CORRECT under subjective morality, while another person who things the same war is immoral IS ALSO CORRECT.
What we think is good enough. We don’t need the approval of the universe to oppose hate or favor peace over war. We can act on our values. Why would I care at all if hate or war were objectively bad? Suppose moral realism was not true. Would you care any less about opposing war or hate? I’m an antirealist, and I doubt I care any less about anything of practical significance as a result.
If what we think is good enough, then what the person who believes war is more moral than peace’s thoughts are also good enough. Yet that creates a logical contradiction: Peace is more moral because you believe it, but war is more moral because Fred believes it. Who decides, and why?
There is no logical contradition with relativistic views of morality. These views don’t hold that if Alex thinks war is better than peace that “war is better than peace” is nonindexically true, while if Sam thinks war is worse htan peace that “war is not better than peace” is also nonindexically true. That would be a contradiction. Rather, relativistic views hold that moral claims contain an implicit indexical element that allows their truth to vary relative to the standards they are indexed to. So their statements would be better interpreted as:
Alex: “War is better than peace according to my standards.”
Sam: “War is better than peace according to my standards.”
These statements do not contradict each other.
Alex: “War is better than peace according to my standards.”
Sam: “War is better than peace according to my standards.”
I am not talking about those statements. I am speaking of this scenario:
Alex: “War with thhis nation at this time is better than peace according to my standards.”
Sam: “Peace with this nation at this time is better than war according to my standards.”
You are right in saying that they aren’t contradictory. Instead they lead to incoherence which can lead to contradictory standards for the government that wants to decide. Again who decides? Is is moral to decide policy by focus group?