Summary
Highlights
Ethical subjectivism proposes that moral statements are not objective but depend on individual perceptions, feelings, preferences, and convictions. This makes moral arguments arbitrary and unable to express universal truths. For example, an ethical subjectivist would claim that viewing Nazi actions as evil is merely showing a negative attitude, not defining them as inherently bad.
Ethical subjectivism as a philosophical theory originated with David Hume in the 18th century, who saw morality as a matter of sentiment rather than fact. It later evolved into more sophisticated doctrines, starting with simple subjectivism. Simple subjectivism posits that moral statements reflect an individual's approval or disapproval, meaning a person's judgment is always correct as long as it honestly represents their feelings, implying infallibility and precluding genuine moral disagreement.
Simple subjectivism faces two main objections: it implies that individuals cannot make moral mistakes (as their feelings are always 'right'), and it eliminates the possibility of genuine moral disagreement. If moral statements merely reflect personal preferences, then any disagreement is simply acknowledging differing feelings rather than debating objective truth.
Emotivism, developed by Charles Stevenson, is an upgraded version of subjectivism. It argues that moral language doesn't state facts but expresses emotions and aims to influence behavior. For example, 'murder is immoral' translates to 'Don't kill people!' or 'Murder, boo!' This theory is also known as the 'boo-hooray theory' and differs from simple subjectivism by asserting that moral judgments are commands or attitudes, not statements of fact, and thus can be neither true nor false.
Ethical subjectivism highlights the evaluative and subjective nature of moral judgments, showcasing how they reflect approval or disapproval. It emphasizes that morality is dependent on individual experience and feelings. The theory can clarify discussions by focusing on attitudes rather than objective truths and reveals the persuasive intentions behind moral statements.
The theory leads to several problematic conclusions: if individuals can hold differing moral judgments on the same situation and both be 'right,' it fails to define right and wrong. It also implies that people cannot be wrong in their moral judgments and prevents reasonable discussions on ethical issues because there's no objective common ground for good and bad. This makes living life as an ethical subjectivist practically impossible.
Moral judgments need to be reinforced with valid reasons, unlike simple preferences. While liking cake requires no reason, claiming abortion is unacceptable demands justification. Reason provides the objective basis for ethics, transforming subjective sentiments into defensible moral positions.
Applying ethical subjectivism in real-life situations proves difficult. For example, if ISIS believes its actions are morally correct, subjectivism would deem them so, even if the rest of the world condemns them. Similarly, a pregnant Christian teenager's belief against abortion would be considered 'correct' by her, while others might advocate for abortion for her future. Such scenarios highlight the conflicts and problems that arise when ethical subjectivism is applied.
Ethical subjectivism focuses on individual personality and feelings as the source of moral values, whereas cultural relativism asserts that moral values are determined by the cultural consensus of a group, not objective or universal standards. Examples include differing norms around nudity, eye contact in conversations, punctuality, public gum chewing, and expressions of humility across various cultures (e.g., African tribes vs. Western societies, Japan vs. America, Italy vs. Germany).