ETHICS Chapter 2 Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism in Ethics
Moral Philosophy: Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism
Chapter Overview
Examines key concepts in moral philosophy, particularly subjectivism, relativism, and emotivism. It explores how these theories differ in their views on moral judgments, the nature of ethical truths, and the implications of each perspective for understanding moral discourse.
Background and Definitions
Objectivism: This is the truth this is why it is right or wrong.
Definition: The theory that moral truths exist independently of individual or societal beliefs. if I say 2+2 is 4 and one person says no its not it doesn’t change the fact that 2+2 =4. the truth doesn’t change because we say it does.
Distinction from absolutism:
says that’s it’s ALWAYS that way. those are the rules. but there are always exceptions.
Absolutism holds that objective principles are rigid rules with no exceptions. For example, they must be applied in exactly the same way in every situation and culture.
Cultural Relativism:
Definition: The view that an action is morally right if approved by one’s culture.
Example: A cultural belief might justify an honor killing as morally right due to its approval by that culture.
Subjective Relativism: based on that person and their background. For instance, a person raised in a society that values individual freedom may view assisted suicide as morally permissible, while someone from a more conservative background may deem it unacceptable.
Definition: The view that moral rightness is determined by individual approval.
Key distinction:
Moral rightness and wrongness are relative to individuals rather than cultures.
Emotivism: moral statements are based on emotion and feelings.
Definition: The theory that moral statements express emotions/attitudes rather than truths.
Notions:
Moral utterances are not true or false but reflective of emotional states.
Subjective Relativism
Core Principles
According to subjective relativism: if i approve it it is right for me, if the culture approve it is right for the culture. if i dont approve makes it wrong for me . This perspective emphasizes that moral beliefs and judgments are grounded in individual emotions and personal approval, rather than objective standards or universal truths.
An action X is considered right for individual Ann if she approves of it and wrong for individual Greg if he disapproves.
Conclusion:
Action X can simultaneously be right for one individual while wrong for another, establishing moral rightness as a matter of personal taste.
Implications
Factors challenging subjective relativism include:
Moral infallibility: they CAANOT be wrong.
Everyone is viewed as morally infallible, as there is no error in personal approval.
Moral disagreements:
No possibility for conflicts as disagreement merely reflects differing personal attitudes. no one is wrong they are just have differences in their preferences, which emphasizes the subjective nature of moral judgments in this framework.
Cultural Relativism
WALTER T Stace’s Argument
Premises:
Moral judgments vary across cultures. which is true
If moral judgments differ culturally, then morality is relative and lacks objective principles.
Conclusion:
Morality is relative to culture; therefore, no objective moral truths exist.
Criticism of Stace’s Argument
Criticism of Premise 2:
Just because there are differing moral views doesn’t imply all are equally valid or that a correct moral view does not exist.
Example: Disputes over the dimensions of a house do not invalidate the existence of an objectively correct measurement.
Divergent Beliefs:
Differences in moral judgments may stem from various non-moral beliefs, suggesting some parties might be misinformed about objective moral facts.
Implications of Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism raises issues such as:
Moral infallibility of cultures: Each culture is seen as free from moral error.
Social reform: Social reformers cannot be deemed morally right against the norms of their culture.
Moral disagreements: Disputes within a culture are treated as disagreements over cultural norms.
External criticism: Cultures cannot be justifiably critiqued from an outside perspective.
Moral progress: Possibility of moral advancement becomes fundamentally questionable.
Cultural Relativism and Tolerance
Questions of Tolerance
Query: Does cultural relativism entail and support the virtue of tolerance?
All people should be tolerant of other cultures.
Inconsistency of Cultural Relativism
If tolerance holds as an objective moral value, cultural relativism must be false as it does not allow for absolute moral norms that could justify intolerance versus tolerance. for example, cultural relativism may assert that practices considered intolerant in one society could be viewed as acceptable in another, leading to contradictions when evaluating the morality of such actions universally.
Assessing the Relationship
No inherent relationship exists between tolerance and cultural relativism; both can be justified independently.
Justification of Intolerance
Under cultural relativism, intolerance can be rationalized equally with tolerance, highlighting a significant issue within the framework.
Alternative Perspective
Embracing moral objectivism does not inherently lead to intolerance; it provides an avenue for a more coherent moral landscape.
Emotivism
Core Concept
Definition:
Emotivism asserts that moral judgments do not possess truth values; they reflect emotional states rather than factual claims.
Example:
Saying “Murder is wrong” reflects disapproval rather than stating an objective fact.
Implications of Emotivism
nothing is actually good or bad. everything is okay.
Challenges posed by emotivism include:
Lack of disagreement: No possibility for moral disputes as there are no moral facts to disagree over.
Reasoning: Support for moral judgments involves offering non-moral facts intending to shift attitudes rather than providing factual backing for moral truth.
Subjectivity of goodness and badness: No objective qualities define good or bad; they are simply feelings expressed through moral claims.
This note examines key concepts in moral philosophy: subjectivism, relativism, and emotivism.
Objectivism: Moral truths exist independently of individual or societal beliefs, differing from absolutism, which implies rigid, exceptionless rules.
Cultural Relativism: An action is morally right if approved by one’s culture (e.g., honor killings can be justified culturally).
Subjective Relativism: Moral rightness is determined by individual approval, leading to personal moral standards.
Emotivism: Moral statements express emotions rather than truths; they indicate approval or disapproval rather than objective facts.
Implications:
Subjective relativism suggests moral infallibility and denies conflict resolution through moral disagreements.
Stace argues cultural moral variations indicate moral relativity, yet this fails to address the validity of differing moral views.
Cultural relativism permits moral infallibility and complicates social reform and external criticism.
Tolerance in Cultural Relativism:
Cultural relativism does not inherently support tolerance and can justify intolerance, posing a significant moral dilemma.
Emotivism's Challenges:
Emotivism suggests moral disagreements are impossible, as moral expressions indicate feelings rather than factual claims, questioning the objectivity of good and bad.