Subjectivism
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
Subjectivism, also called moral relativism, is popularly defined as the moral theory that any moral opinion is as good as any other. Philosophers use the term "subjectivism" to refer to a range of ethical theories that deny that moral inquiry can yield objective truths.
[edit] Origins
R. Eric Barnes offers the following hypothesis to account for moral relativism being so widespread in societies today:
- Moral relativism is a commonly held belief - mostly by people who do not fully understand the theory. [...] I present a hypothesis as to the cause of many people's belief in moral relativism. It is a fairly common goal in education today to teach young people to be accepting of other people and cultures that are different from their own, and this is an exceedingly admirable goal. To achieve this one must prevent naive youths from making hasty moral judgments (including simple moral judgments concerning manners and everyday customs) about other cultures. It is easy to prevent young people from being judgmental in this way by teaching them that they cannot make (i.e., are not allow to make or are not justified in making) moral judgments about other cultures. This blanket prohibition on cross-cultural judgment has the positive effect of making people more tolerant of other cultures, but it has the unfortunate negative effect of indoctrinating people with an incorrect conception of morality. (Though it would be harder to teach, it would be best to teach people that although there are objective moral facts, that we should still be very accepting of other cultures, since truly bad cultures are rare.) [...]
- Individual relativism may come from a similar source. People have a desire to get along with others, and real disagreements about serious moral issues can really keep people from getting along. However, if two people are moral relativists, then it does not matter what each of them believes morally, because it is impossible for them to really disagree. Each of them can say, "Well, that's your opinion, but it's not my opinion - and we are both entitled to our moral opinions." The subtext here is that two people are refusing to behave as though they have a moral disagreement - even though they really do disagree. (Barnes, p. 148 - 149)
[edit] Quotations
David Hume sums up a common belief of the empiricists of his time that morality was a matter of feeling, not reason:
- Take any action allow'd to be viscious: Wilful murder, for instance. Examine in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice [...] You can never find it, till you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, toward this action. Here is a matter of fact; but 'tis the object of feeling, not reason.
[edit] Discussion
As far as morality is concerned, subjectivists argue, there are really no explicit moral "facts", and that no one is ever "right" or "wrong"; all expressions that any particular behavior is moral or immoral is really nothing more than saying how one personally feels about the issue. As no one's feelings are any more correct than anyone else's, it could be said that when people disagree about morality, they merely have different feelings.
Abortion is a convenient example of a moral disagreement. Subjectivists would agree that it is a factual statement that over 1 million abortions have occurred a year in the United States since Roe v. Wade, but it is not a fact that abortion is either a good or a bad thing. In terms of abortion, subjectivists argue that whether a person finds abortion right or wrong depends on their personal introspection, whether they feel comfortable or repelled by the idea. It would also be argued that any person can think about having an abortion, and determine with a fair amount of reason whether their lives would be made easier for having it, but no amount of reasoning would inform a person about whether they should have an abortion or reveal the truth about how a woman should behave.
A more precise formulation of subjectivism is as follows: when a person says that something is good or bad, this means he or she personally approves or disapproves of it. In other words:
"X is morally acceptable" }
"X is right" }
"X is good" } all mean: "I (the speaker) approve of X"
"X ought to be done" }
Likewise:
"X is morally unacceptable" }
"X is wrong" }
"X is bad" } all mean: "I (the speaker) disapprove of X"
"X ought not to be done" }
This formulation is known as simple subjectivism.
[edit] Misconceptions
As subjectivism is an often misunderstood moral theory, there are several misconceptions associated with its claims:
[edit] Subjectivism Implies Infallibility
At first glance of the above formulation, there appears to be an awkward consequence of logic, namely that if everything we say is nothing more than expression of our personal feelings, then it implies that nothing we say can ever be in error (quite clearly, someone saying "I disapprove of X" is making a factually true statement). This form of subjectivism seems to imply our infallibility.
However, subjectivists would reply that "infallibility" may not be a serious objection to subjectivism as much as it is clever wordplay.
[edit] Subjectivism Precludes Tolerance
Subjectivism is often very popular because it appears to imply a certain level of tolerance - such as in the way that we should be tolerant of others who disagree with us, that everyone has a right to believe whatever they wish without having to be dictated what sort of things they should believe. This line of reasoning is often followed by the statement that no members of a community have the right to impose their moral values on any other members of a community.
However, the subtle mistake in that kind of thinking is that the idea "we should be tolerant of other views" is itself a moral judgment, and subjectivism does not prescribe any moral judgments. Subjectivism says nothing about which particular stance we should adopt in terms of tolerating others, it only says that whatever stance a person takes will be nothing more than an expression of his or her personal feelings about tolerating dissenting opinions.
[edit] Subjectivism Equates to Nihilism
Another common misconception is that "if nothing is really 'right' or 'wrong', then everything is permitted", or equally "nothing really matters" - thereby negating all morality.
However, according to subjectivism, if someone were to really announce "nothing really matters", that would be an expression of that individual's personal feelings - according to subjectivism, we might conclude that such a person is suffering from acute melancholia.
It does not follow from subjectivism that anyone will stop having feelings about certain moral issues, nor does it follow they should stop having these feelings, or that these feelings are improper. Therefore, it does not follow that if you accept subjectivism, you should come to believe that "nothing really matters". It is important to keep in mind that subjectivism is only a theory about how people come to certain moral views stating that moral facts are not independent of our personal feelings, a subjectivist is not committed to adhere to any form of nihilism.
[edit] Criticisms of Subjectivism
The most common criticism of subjectivism rests on the idea that, if subjectivism were true, there would be no way to account for disagreements about morality. An explanation for what this means is supplied in the essay "Subjectivism" by James Rachels:
- [A] serious problem is that simple subjectivism [the theory that moral claims are nothing more that expressions of opinion or attitude] cannot account for the fact that people disagree about ethics. George Bush says that abortion is immoral. Betty Friedan, author of The Feminist Mystique and a leading feminist thinker, denies this, saying that abortion is not immoral. Plainly, Mr. Bush and Ms. Friedan disagree. But consider what simple subjectivism implies about the situation:
- According to simple subjectivism, when Mr. Bush says that abortion is immoral, he is merely making a statement about his attitude - he is saying that he, George Bush, disapproves of abortion. Would Ms. Friedan disagree with that? No, she would agree that Mr. Bush disapproves of abortion. At the same time, when she says that abortion is not immoral, she is only saying that she, Betty Friedan, does not disapprove of it. And why should Mr. Bush disagree with that? In fact, Mr. Bush would certainly acknowledge that Friedan does not disapprove of abortion. Thus, according to simple subjectivism, there is no disagreement between them - each would acknowledge the truth of what the other is saying! Surely, though, there is something wrong here, for surely Bush and Friedan do disagree about whether abortion is immoral.
- There is a kind of eternal frustration implied by simple subjectivism: Bush and Friedan are deeply opposed to one another; yet, they cannot even state their positions in a way that joins the issue. Friedan may try to deny what Bush says, by denying that abortion is immoral, but according to simple subjectivism she only succeeds in changing the subject. (Rachels, p. 435 - 436)
[edit] Related Topics
[edit] References
Barnes, R. Eric. Philosophy in Practice. Published by Clark Publishing © 1996.
Hume, David. A Treatis of Human Nature. Published in London, 1740.
Rachels, James. (1993). "Subjectivism". Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0631187855
