This paper reviews the philosophy of ethical subjectivism, or the idea that moral judgements are relative, rather than objective in nature. The philosophy roots morality in the individual's temperament and cultural worldview, rather than in inherent moral structures that exist outside of culture. It discusses the pros (tolerance) and the cons (the difficulty in governing) of the ethical system.
Ethical Subjectivsim
Ethical subjectivism
Ethical subjectivism could also be called 'relativism,' or the notion that there is no external, objective moral authority. We as humans create our ethical norms, and ethics are culturally contextual. Ethical subjectivism stands in contrast to objectivism, which holds that there are objective moral standards by which all moral actions should be judged. "Moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone" (Ethical subjectivism, 2012, Philosophy Basics).
A good example of this can be seen in the pragmatic philosophy of William James. In his Varieties of Religious Experience, James argued that all faiths were effectively divided into two categories: that of the 'religion of healthy-mindedness' and the 'sick soul. "We have all known or met people who seem happy all the time, who are convinced of the essential goodness of life, who radiate a certain enthusiasm and cheer... There are those, on the other hand, who are painfully conscious of evil in the world. They tend to be discontented, alienated, divided" (The healthy-minded and the sick soul, 2012, Philosophical Society). Neither view is inherently 'right,' according to James, rather the different perspectives are fundamentally rooted in the temperament of the individuals in question, not any objective reality of the universe.
Ethical subjectivists believe that it is impossible to say that a certain thing is 'good' or 'bad' in the abstract. It is possible to say whether a moral action conforms to a standard, but the standard itself is relative and subjective in nature. "It is a cognitivist theory, in that it holds that ethical sentences, while subjective, are nonetheless the kind of thing that can be true or false, depending on whose approval is being discussed" (Ethical subjectivism, 2012, Philosophy Basics). Subjectivism's philosophy is upheld by the fact that different cultures have different standards and our own moral schemas have varied wildly through the ages. What was seen as moral a hundred years ago is not necessarily deemed to be moral today.
Ethical subjectivism can provide an important counterweight to ideas of moral self-righteousness. It also infuses a great deal of psychological analysis into the discussion of ethics. Unlike other philosophical systems, it acknowledges the potential bias of the speaker when making an ethical judgment. "Moral statements are just factual statements about the attitude the speaker holds on a particular issue. So if I say 'Lying is wrong', all I'm doing is telling you that I disapprove of telling lies," or even that I am making a personal comment about someone I do not like, regardless of whether I truly think them a liar" (Introduction to ethics: Subjectivism, 2012, BBC). Subjectivism helps explain why people often behave in morally inconsistent ways, saying one thing and doing another -- morals are based in feelings of a personal or cultural origin. It unmasks that what may seem to be an ethical debate may really be about power interests, emotions, personal beliefs about one's opponent, or other irrelevant data.
The most obvious objection to subjectivism is that it is very difficult to govern a society based upon ethical relativism. "If moral statements have no objective truth, then how can we blame people for behaving in a way that 'is wrong', i.e. If "murder is wrong" has no objective truth, then how can we justify punishing people for murder?" (Introduction to ethics: Subjectivism, 2012, BBC). Some agreed-upon norms are needed to make society functional, and people are less likely to behave according to law if they do not believe the law has some sort of objective authority. While this may be the case, an ethical subjectivist would say that the notion that laws and standards have an intrinsic 'good' to them beyond some social consensus is still in error.
The flip side of this contention is that the philosophy tends to promote cultural diversity and tolerance. Ethical subjectivism discourages taking a harsh view of other cultural norms, given that no society's system of ethics -- even democracy -- is inherently better than another society's. Our sense that we have inalienable rights is based on our custom and upbringing. For an ethical subjectivist, everything is a matter of taste and inclination, not something that exists outside of the person or persons setting the standard. However, it should be noted that ethical subjectivism is far from a synonym with tolerance: the idea that 'tolerance is good' is itself an example of an objective moral values. The argument for tolerance that stems from subjectivism is that: "All moral standards or truths are dependent only upon the opinions and feelings (not fact) of the utterer making the subjective moral judgment; I feel that tolerance is right for me; [ergo] People ought to tolerate (respect) other people's feelings and lifestyles" (Agler 2012).
You’re 85% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.