Far from being completely impossible, subjective ethics are entirely more consistent than the alternative. The important thing about analyzing ethical systems is to find axioms that you actually believe. An unanalyzed moral system tends to have false axioms: things that the speaker says are fundamental tenets, but on further analysis simply don't stand muster.
For example, the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is anything but an axiom. All but the most unreasonable followers will be able to produce some circumstance where killing is moral. That's not an axiom, that's a guideline.
So why find one's axioms? Ultimately, the entire study of ethics boils down to one simple question: "What ought I do?". When faced with a dilemma, what should I choose? With the understanding of your beliefs, you can make a reasoned decision, consistent with your broader choices. If you exist in a society, then you will inevitably be forced to react to the actions of others, which, in of itself, is a forced action on your part. If you don't have some framework with which to judge the actions of others, then your ethical framework is utterly incomplete.
> For example, the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is anything but an axiom. All but the most unreasonable followers will be able to produce some circumstance where killing is moral. That's not an axiom, that's a guideline.
So can you give an example of an actual "moral axiom"
> "do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
This one doesn't just have edge cases, it has a hole large enough to float an aircraft carrier through it. My grandparents (all deceased at this point) did not want to be treated in the same way I want(ed) to be treated.
The much less absurd version is: "treat other people the way they would like to be treated". Still edge cases, but the holes are much smaller.
It breaks down when dealing with anybody who selfishly wants more than they deserve. A child stamps his feet and demands the biggest piece of cake, should you give it to him? Treating people the way they want to be treated rewards greed and selfishness.
On the other hand, treating other people the way you wish to be treated is self-moderating. If I am greedy, the golden rule commands me to be generous to others. If I encounter somebody who's greedy, the golden rule only obliges me to give them whatever I would think myself entitled to.
The golden rule can't make everybody happy, and isn't supposed to. If there is some delta between the way your grandparents expect to be treated and the way you want to be treated, so be it. I don't think this is a reasonable objection to the golden rule.
I think you meant to reply to my comment, rather than a comment on that.
When it comes to materialistic "treating", sure I agree. But in the realm of emotion and psychology, I stand by what I said: treats others as they wish to be treated (to the extent possible).
> But in the realm of emotion and psychology, I stand by what I said: treats others as they wish to be treated (to the extent possible).
How do you deal with narcissists, who feel entitled to praise and adoration beyond what they can reasonably be entitled? Do you humor them to the extent possible? And if you don't humor narcissists like that, what is your process for determining what is or isn't reasonable? Probably, that process involves you imagining yourself in their shoes and thinking about what you might reasonably feel entitled to in their position, e.g. applying the golden rule.
> better translated ‘though shall not murder’ for the modern reader
Which cleverly punts the problem to the language centre of the brain, which gets to decide whether a particular killing was a good kill (execution, enemy combatant) or bad (murder).
It does for a reader, but reading wasn’t common ~4K years ago when it was written. These are communal truths verified through generations of dialog and discussion.
> does for a reader, but reading wasn’t common ~4K years ago when it was written
The point is murder is defined as bad killing. That doesn’t help us define what “bad” means. (Or whether a particular killing is bad.) It leaves it to context. Depending on your perspective, that’s either useless or savvy.
For example, the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is anything but an axiom. All but the most unreasonable followers will be able to produce some circumstance where killing is moral. That's not an axiom, that's a guideline.
So why find one's axioms? Ultimately, the entire study of ethics boils down to one simple question: "What ought I do?". When faced with a dilemma, what should I choose? With the understanding of your beliefs, you can make a reasoned decision, consistent with your broader choices. If you exist in a society, then you will inevitably be forced to react to the actions of others, which, in of itself, is a forced action on your part. If you don't have some framework with which to judge the actions of others, then your ethical framework is utterly incomplete.