Download Chapter 3 “The Elements of Moral Philosophy” James Rachels

Subjectivism
in Ethics
Chapter 3 “The Elements of Moral
Philosophy” James Rachels
Professor Douglas Olena
Outline
The Basic Idea of Ethical Subjectivism
The Evolution of the Theory
The First Stage: Simple Subjectivism
The Second Stage: Emotivism
Are There Any Moral Facts?
Are There Proofs in Ethics?
The Question of Homosexuality
The Basic Idea of
Ethical Subjectivism
33 The basic thought behind Ethical Subjectivism:
People have different opinions, but where morality
is concerned, there are no “facts,” and no one is
“right.”
People just feel differently, and that’s the end of it.
The Basic Idea of
Ethical Subjectivism
33 There is no objective right or wrong.
When Jerry “Falwell says homosexuality is wrong, he
is not stating a fact about homosexuality. Instead, he
is merely saying something about his feelings toward
it.”
This way of treating moral matters is like David
Hume’s treatment. And it can be applied to any
moral judgment.
The Evolution
of the Theory
33, 34 Statement of the crude idea, acceptance by
some;
Challenge to the idea, rejection by some, further
refinement by others.
Simple Subjectivism
34 Saying something is right means, “I approve of it.”
Saying something is wrong means, “I disapprove of
it.”
see diagram page 34.
Simple Subjectivism
35 Simple Subjectivism Cannot Account for Our
Fallibility.
If simple subjectivism were correct, we couldn’t be
mistaken making a judgment about something.
This is contrary to our ordinary intuitions.
Simple Subjectivism implies that we are infallible.
Simple Subjectivism
36 Simple Subjectivism Cannot Account for
Disagreement.
If all we are doing by saying we approve or
disapprove of something, then there is no real
disagreement. It is just a difference of opinion.
This flies in the face of our ordinary intuition that
disagreement is substantive.
Emotivism
36 Language is used in a variety of ways.
One of the principle ways is in stating facts which are
either true or false.
37 Commands, though, do not state facts.
Neither do exclamations state facts.
Emotivism
37 Exclamations and moral commands do not state
facts, but express the speaker’s attitudes.
“According to Emotivism, moral language is not factstating language.”
It is used as a means of influencing people’s behavior.
Emotivism
38 Emotivism says that moral statements are not
reports of attitudes, but the expression of those
attitudes.
It therefore states no facts at all and can be taken as
an emotional outburst or a command.
Simple Subjectivism asserted infallibility to the
speaker. Emotivism asserts nothing about the
speaker.
In Emotivism the speaker expresses only desires.
Emotivism
39 Emotivism “could not account for the place of
reason in ethics.”
Are There Any
Moral Facts?
40 “Moral judgments require backing by reasons, and
in the absence of such reasons, they are merely
arbitrary.”
Any theory of moral judgments should be able to
show why the judgments and their reasons are
connected.
Emotivism failed at this point.
Are There Any
Moral Facts?
40 For emotivism, any reason given to support a
moral statement that will convince the hearer is
acceptable.
Rachels reminds us that “Not just any fact can count
as a reason in support of any judgment.”
The reason must be relevant, irrespective of its power
to convince a hearer.
Are There Any
Moral Facts?
41 Moral judgments are fundamentally different from
scientific facts and expressions of our feelings.
“Moral truths are truths of reason; that is, a moral
judgment is true if it is backed by better reasons than
the alternatives.”
“Such truths are objective in the sense that they are
true independently of what we might want or think.”
Are There Any
Moral Facts?
Rachels does not admit to any universal moral law or
natural law that is not understood by reason and
modifiable by better reasons in the future.
Are There Any
Proofs in Ethics?
41, 42 Science gives us a rule for proof.
Subjectivism is attractive because it applies the same
rule to ethics.
Subjectivism fails to be provable because it cannot
give a warrant for the reasons given for a judgment.
Are There Any
Proofs in Ethics?
42, 43 Rachels gives us many examples where a
judgment is in fact provable on grounds that most
would accept.
The test was unfair, Jones is a bad man, Dr. Smith is
irresponsible, car dealer is unethical, lying prevents
the formation of society.
Are There Any
Proofs in Ethics?
43 “We can support our judgments with good
reasons, and we can provide explanations why those
reasons matter.”
We can also show that no comparable case can be
made for the other side of the matter.
What more proof is needed?
How can it be said that ethical judgments are no more
than “mere opinions?”
Are There Any
Proofs in Ethics?
43 Why do people still believe Subjectivism?
1. They are thinking of an inappropriate standard of
proof. (Aristotle)
2. The most difficult cases are cited as examples, like
abortion. The most complicated issues in physics
are as well undecidable, but we accept proofs of
uncontroversial matters.
Are There Any
Proofs in Ethics?
3. It is easy to conflate two different matters:
a. Persuading someone to accept your proof.”
b. 44 “Proving an opinion to be correct.
You may have a good proof that someone will not
accept.
Ethics may ask us to do something we don’t want to
do, so it is only to be expected that we will try to
avoid hearing its demands.
The Question of
Homosexuality
To begin, I don’t think Rachels has the answer to this
issue, but he has the best answer reason can give us.
44 Using the minimum conception of morality:
Fact: “Homosexuals are pursuing the only way of
life that affords them a chance of happiness.”
The Question of
Homosexuality
44 “If it could be shown that gays and lesbians pose
some sort of threat to the rest of society, that would be
a powerful argument for the other side.”
Those claims lack factual basis.
That homosexuals are somehow sinister is a myth.
The Question of
Homosexuality
45 The case against homosexuals reduces to the
familiar claim that it is “unnatural.”
1. Unnaturalness might be a statistical notion.
2. Unnaturalness might be connected with the idea of
a thing’s purpose.
3. The word unnatural might mean “contrary to
what a person ought to be.” But if that is what
unnatural means then saying something is wrong
because it is unnatural is vacuous.
The Question of
Homosexuality
Homosexuality is supposedly against family values.
How can it be when gays and lesbians are
campaigning to form families?
The Question of
Homosexuality
Religious argument.
Rachels gives a compelling reason to ignore the issue
when compared to other texts.
But is there other “religious” reasoning to suggest
homosexuality should be avoided?
Romans 1