Stevenson's Emotive Meaning of Good: Subjectivity and Ethics

Introduction: Stevenson's Account of Good

Part II of Charles Leslie Stevenson's "The Emotive Meaning of Ethical Terms" is a continuation of the first part of the text, in which Stevenson presents a general understanding of the idea of "good" from both an ethical and a philosophical point of view. In the second part, the writer proceeds to offer his personal perspective on the matter. Even though Stevenson wants readers to gain a complex understanding of what "good" means from a general standpoint, he seems unhesitant about opening people's eyes to the subjectivity behind this concept.

The Paradox of Good as Universal and Subjective

Stevenson uses the text as a means to emphasize the idea of good as something that can be universal while simultaneously arguing that it is too subjective to be defined. To a certain degree, the writer intends for readers to acknowledge that the very concept of good is a paradox. It contradicts and supports itself at the same time — a person can define good as something he or she enjoys, or can argue that something else is not good precisely because he or she does not enjoy it.

Community, Social Acceptance, and the Definition of Good

In many cases, society is the reason why certain things are considered bad. Stevenson wants people to observe how the idea of good is built upon the premise that things generally accepted are deemed acceptable, while things that are not accepted should be disapproved. Even when particular things are considered socially acceptable, they can still be disapproved by a smaller number of individuals — and there is nothing to say that those individuals are wrong in their judgment.

Stevenson's example of an ammunition maker claiming that war is good is especially self-explanatory: some people believe certain things to be good solely because of the effect those things have on them or on those close to them. As long as the munition maker thrives as a consequence of selling ammunition, he tends to focus on personal interests rather than on the fact that his products are used to kill people. This illustrates how moral relativism operates at the level of individual self-interest.

The idea of good is often based on the way that people perceive the environment closest to them. As a consequence, people in a community may feel that what they consider good is sufficient grounds to compile a series of legislations designed to guarantee that good. This is why, in many cases, individuals end up promoting values that others disapprove of — they may have trouble acknowledging that those values harm others.

Conclusion: The Relativity of Goodness

Depending on their background, individuals are more or less likely to accept the idea that a particular thing is good. As Stevenson writes, "Between people of widely separated communities, of course, the influence is less strong; hence different communities have different attitudes" (Stevenson 20). The writer does not want people to conclude that good is a concept that cannot possibly exist. Instead, he wants individuals to acknowledge that it is wrong to assume there will always be one form of good that society as a whole will promote.

The fact that laws exist alongside morality actually demonstrates that good is a relative term. Individuals cannot consider themselves genuine supporters of good as long as they accept that others are being harmed as a result of their actions. Society functions in a way that encourages individuals to focus only on the kind of thinking that allows themselves and their community to prosper, without concern for those outside that community.