Interesting topic..

I will speak to two threads:

The effect of the evolution or future of philosophy in regard to academia versus society in general.

The notion that a revival or increase of feminine ethics within philosophical discourse could have the efficacy of balancing its perspective in light of the field being traditionally dominated by males.


I believe the impact of philosophy's diversity of thought will always be more profound in the academic community and within those who follow its progress independently than in the public at large. Certain aspects slowly and eventually seep into society, although in modernity it seems such sentiments are often conveyed via pithy memes and tweets rather than with any particular nuance. I agree with the OP's sentiment that perhaps more people with mental illness will seek out help or insight into their conditions themselves, being that more and more of such information is becoming available online. I do not necessarily think that it will more times than not be in the guise of a pseudo-psychological/philosophical hybrid as I do not see an effort to conceal the nature of such resources. Regardless of accuracy or quality, most resources seem to exist within the scope of good intentions, this very forum included.

This second thread is an interesting observation of an aspect of social construction of reality. I find it to be at least adjacent to certain phenomena within the political and ideological zeitgeist, specifically the relegation of debates to black and white fallacies. It sometimes seems intuitive to treat metaphysical problems with physical solutions. In this case, I'm speaking to the notion of the thinking that in order to counter disparity, an equal and opposite reaction or force must be applied. I've observed what I consider to be a ramp-up in such thinking over the course of the last decade or two, wherein the nuance of many debates is stripped down to something akin to good vs. evil. I am not saying that this exactly reflects the OP's sentiment, rather simply likening it to what I see as perhaps social phenomena having an effect on philosophical discourse rather than the inverse as spoken to in the first thread. The thinking that extremism can only be met with diametric extremism seems to be a motif of modern politics and policy, especially in rhetoric, though a measure of it can be observed in attempts at pragmatism as well. I can give an example of this in modern politics within the scope of how it seems to be at odds with "modern stoicism". Rather than operating with pragmatism, elected officials such as AOC and Bernie Sanders seem to use unbridled idealism to counter the regressive policies of their counterparts on the right. Neither side could be said to be employing any long term strategy here, rather they seem to be playing to the sentiments held by the most extreme within their constituencies. In summary, I do not seek to mitigate the efficacy of a potential increase in the inclusion of feminine ethics within modern philosophical discourse, rather I contend that diversity of thought itself, in its entirety, should be held in higher regard than specific ancillary components of it.

Today is tomorrow's yesterday... but if tomorrow never comes, how soon is now?

I think being unaware or ignorant of the connotations of certain phrases is its own kind of historical or racial insensitivity. I think it depends on who is using them and how they are used. If you’re saying they’re just innocent coincidences when speaking about their use by an experienced commentator or pundit, or an elected official, then you’re deluding yourself. That being said, there are those in the OPed media that will find some crumb of something akin to this and make it into an issue when there is none.. but more often they are calling someone out for using these types of terms in order to avoid full blown overt racism, sexism, or any other bigotry.

Just like with an actual dog whistle, it is not the blower that hears the shrill sound.

Spoiler alert: It was Colonel Mustard in the library with a candlestick.

Bad news for any rational person that wishes Trump out of power after the next election in my opinion:

Even with a disaffected right wing challenger who runs as 3rd party, the votes that person siphons off (which is always the only efficacy of 3rd parties), will not be enough.. There is no candidate on the other side that will unite a constituency... There is no Preparation H for the butthurt... Even the basic notion of getting rid of Trump will not be enough to quell these political hemorrhoids...

I am partial to a god with noodly appendages.

;)

It is difficult sometimes to be dispassionate about something one feels passionate about. This is my first day here so I cannot really speak to the issue specifically as it pertains to what has happened here in the past, but I have experienced these sentiments before. I have also witnessed atheists complaining about theists incessantly posting bible verse and scripture in an attempt to shut down a philosophical discussion or debate.

These sort of clashes are inevitable in my opinion. There is too much convergence in many topics within the scope of philosophy in general for there to ever be true avoidance or separation.

While I agree with the sentiment that respect is important in furtherance of substantive discourse, I find it difficult to agree with things akin to "the oppression of Judeo-Christian thought". Thick skin is kind of a requisite to entering into a forum such as this. If you're not willing to have your ideas or beliefs challenged, perhaps this is not the right place for you... otherwise, let the moderators be the judge of what crosses the line.

So there was more than one question raised:

Why is subjective morality respected?

Why use or defend a subjective metric in a universe that has proven to be entirely defined by objective metrics?

Is subjective morality respected, and if so, who respects it and who does not? In my mind, the question reads more like "should subjective morality be respected", and to carry that forward in accordance to the actual title of the post; "Should subjective morality be respected over objective morality?". Morality is simultaneously the principles we use to guide our actions and choices and what we use then to judge said actions and choices. That being said, the question can be reduced to; "How do we judge how to judge?". The first question as originally stated almost presupposes that objective morality and subjective morality exist in mutual exclusivity within individuals who "subscribe" to either one or the other, as if this dichotomy represents a real or conscious choice in most people and as if this is a distinction that most people make insofar as to which one to respect as being valid. The original post then quickly moves on to more of a commentary on ethics. This, of course, is always the efficacy and progression when speaking to morality, as ethics represents what one actually does or chooses to do. I don't think it can be said that all actions and choice are driven solely by morality, nor do I think all actions and choices could be said to not have some consideration to one's morality.

One of my pet peeves is the use of the term "common sense" in lieu of "conventional wisdom" when the latter is almost always what means to be conveyed. In that light, I think the one who posed these questions and I have different associations in certain relationships between morality and ethics. I've always associated objective morality with deontological ethics and subjective morality with utilitarian ethics. My thinking here is that deontological ethics seem to rise from something relatively tangible, so to a sense, objective. For example, a written religious or doctrinal code or set of laws. (I'm not going to bring up metaethics vs normative ethics because: reasons :p) Subjective morality, in terms of my association with it and utilitarian ethics, seems to be driven more by consensus or the judgment (conventional wisdom) of the "collective" and not a tangible or explicitly written code or doctrine.

Laws, then, can be said to derive from both "schools of thought", as some seem to be more universal (deontological) and some are relative and evolve over time (utilitarian)(and I'm aware that this statement does not encompass the primary distinctions between the two). Aside from the extremes of fundamentalism and radicalism/absolutism, I don't believe that it is a question of which is superior (subjective or objective morality), rather it is an observation of the hybridization of the two within cultures, societies, and legal systems. Now this is sort of digressing to discussing moral relativism which may be simultaneously relevant to the topic and tangential to my points. I suppose what I am trying to say is that in practice and in my observations, most people tend to vacillate between deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics... essentially moral particularism, regardless of what they consider their morality to be. This, of course, leads to Trolley Problems and all those neat little things that attempt to exemplify each course. So, to answer the first question: It's relative! (don't hate me).

So, on to the second question... This again represents a dichotomy that may not be mutually exclusive. I think it speaks more to intent vs. action, which again is related to deontological ethics vs. utilitarian ethics. If the intention or imperative in one's mind is adherence to deontological ethics, then the consequences and results of their actions are immaterial, and conversely, if they are adhering to utilitarian ethics they are only concerned with the consequences and intended outcome. Moral particularism takes the question of superiority out of the equation and also removes the assumption of the mutually exclusive dichotomy. Is there a metric that measures existence or the weighing of a choice within one's mind? A metric can be a way of saying a judgement.. an observation.. perception itself.. So then, this maybe becomes a discussion on objective existence and subjective existence. I think the sentiment behind the second question may be partly influenced by certain sentiments in modern politics, which is that acting or thinking based on feelings (or emotions) is weak in comparison to adhering to a set of values in accordance to a set of beliefs or a creed... or at least I see some commonality. Therein lies the problem in my opinion, in this conflation. It seems we are arguing within the scope of how objective and subjective are used in regard to social phenomena and policy as if they are applicable in the same way as empiricism and theory are in the broad field of physical science. So to answer the second question; I don't believe there is a need to defend one over the other, rather one should be able to weigh each individual choice or course of action as a confluence of experience, beliefs, ideas, thoughts, education, theories, and perception of reality. I don't believe there can be one overarching way to "calculate morality" and take all the nuance out of something inherently more complex than a simple dichotomy.

This is my first time here and my first comment. I am not formally educated in any of this and so hopefully I don't come off as too much of a noob.