It's all Subjective
I am often interested in the objections to Ethical Subjectivism and Richard is stirring some up in what I imagine is his Reductio Ad Absurdum.
I would probably describe myself as a subjectivist, however I think the conclusions drawn (from all parties) from the doctrine of subjectivism in the realm of ethics tend to be absurd.
It is not contrary to subjectivism to consent to objective moral standards. For example, that taking an innocent human life is wrong, and should be avoided. The difference is, the subjectivist admits that there is no objective truth to this value, it only has power through agreement, not because it is rational, adheres to a moral formula, or was carved into stone a very long time ago.
The problem most opponents have with this is that you can have sub-cultures within society that create and agree to their own moral standards and seek to impose them on others (KKK, Nazi Germany, Christian Right, Muslim Fundamentalists) and whilst proponents of alternative ethical theories can be comfortable in proclaiming "This is clearly wrong" subjectivists have no basis to do so.
But to me this is just a creature comfort to think that whatever our preferences are must be right for the reasons we think are reasonable and therefore those that oppose them must be wrong. The subjectivist admits that neither is ultimately right or wrong but it does not follow that he must stand by whilst Germany invades Poland or whilst extremists behead women for adultery. He has a charter of morals to which he (and others) subscribe which may include intervening to prevent innocent lives to be taken and so he does. (Much like in my discussion of torture.)
Admitting that saving innocent lives is a subjective value, held by most people does nothing to detract from its function as a value, which is to be upheld and practiced. How do you go about deciding what values and morals should be included in the charter? Maybe you start with one’s written on rock, or use a logical formula?
Who cares?
Here you are in no less murky waters than any other theory.
Labels: ethics, philosophy
posted by Illusive Mind at 1/21/2005 12:50:00 AM
7 Comments:
This leaves readers feeling very unsatisfied and dubious whether you will indeed stand up for those morals that they have and think they share with most others.
This is because subjectivism is so often used as the "lead in" to appologizing for somthing others would find abhorent. And infact one has to wonder why you hold moral beliefs at all if you are a subjectivist. you are right that you dont HAVE to abandon morals but you also dont have to have them. In fact, why do you?
Puported by geniusnz
This is because subjectivism is so often used as the "lead in" to appologizing for somthing others would find abhorent.Hopefully I haven’t done that here. I haven’t suggested that the actions of the KKK are ‘right’ because they are subject to the values of the ‘KKK’. I think when this is an absurd extrapolation from the thesis of subjectivism. Their actions are neither right nor wrong, neither are their values, but I am in complete disagreement with their values. There is a subtle difference here between disagreeing with something and suggesting something is wrong because you disagree with it.
Values are not descriptive statements about the world; we cannot say that the preference for a family with a mother and a father is incorrect that it is somehow in conflict with empirical evidence.
You can appeal to all sorts of other ideas than ones of objective rightness. Morality is about principles and the comparison of actions in accordance with those principles.
Why bother having any? Well you don’t have to. It is not contrary to the universe or to logic, though it might be to human nature. However you will find that amoral persons tend to be outcast by society. When people say they think that avoiding taking innocent lives is right, perhaps what they are really saying is that they agree with the principle of empathy. That it is right to act towards others as you would want acted towards you. This is a value, widespread neither correct nor incorrect to hold, if you can agree to this as a starting point for your morals then you shouldn’t have too many problems, if you don’t then you’ll encounter the masses who would strongly prefer it if you did.
What do I act in accordance with this principle (mostly) because I agree with it? In what sense does your thinking (hopefully) it is right differ from this?
Puported by Illusive Mind
No I dont think you are doing it but people are understandably wary. Humans are creatures who work by associations. A person who has a gun may not be dangerous to you but you would be a fool not to be wary of them. In the same way a person not tied to absolute morals is a person that one would be wise to look sideways at. So it pays people to have such systems.
If everyone was to be subjectivist people would be more likely to break the rules that a (lets say) objectiveist religion might set up. the fact that you are not one of those people does not matter.
So you may be right on a theoretical level and yet still have an opinion that should not be tolerated. respect without tolerance ;).
Puported by geniusnz
A person who has a gun may not be dangerous to you but you would be a fool not to be wary of them. In the same way a person not tied to absolute morals is a person that one would be wise to look sideways at. So it pays people to have such systems.
So a person who does not believe that ethical values exist in an absolute, eternal form is equivalent to a man holding a gun!
Whilst I think your argument is irrelevant to the treatment of subjectivism, I also think your premise is false.
The fact is we already have in place a system of subjective rules made, followed and enforced by men. It is called “the law”.
If everyone was a subjectivist, all this means is that they admit that there ethical values are subjective not absolute, just like the laws of the land are subjective and not absolute. This does not mean to say they sometimes apply and sometimes don’t. It means they are created through the consideration of certain basic principles (eg. Driving on the wrong side of the road should be against the law because it endangers people’s lives.)
Here in Australia, we drive on the left side of the road. Does it make any sense to suggest that this is somehow intrinsically right? No. It is a subjective law.
Do people break the law? Yes. Do people break the rules set up by religion, God yes.
I think ethical subjectivism does not entail ethical pluarilism. That is, one of the principles I/we may decide to agree to is that some ethics won’t be tolerated. (eg. Killing innocent people) Admitting that this value isn’t absolute doesn’t mean I have to accept other people’s values, though I might be more open minded in considering them. It doesn’t mean I have to tolerate people who violate it.
Puported by Illusive Mind
> So a person who does not believe that ethical values exist in an absolute, eternal form is equivalent to a man holding a gun!
er - yes.. maybe a bit more dangerous but still comparable. A man who truely believed (harder than it sounds of course) in an absolute law preventing killing held a gun to your head you would be perfectly safe. they would not shoot in fact the gun probably isn't even loaded. If he believes that there are no laws he may still not kill you - but he might gun or no gun.
> your argument is irrelevant to the treatment of subjectivism
you are not talking about a random sort of superficial subjectivism you are talking about "saving innocent lives" and "[morals] Why bother having any?"
> The fact is we already have in place a system of subjective rules made, followed and enforced by men. It is called “the law”.
if you compare any two laws one will achieve the purpose better than another. the one that achieves it better is the objectively correct law. All your frivolous examples should disappear with this teatment leaving only fundimental princples.
> That is, one of the principles I/we may decide to agree to is that some ethics won’t be tolerated. (eg. Killing innocent people)
why wont they be tolerated? because you can accumulate sufficient power to stop them and happen to disagree with them right?
Puported by geniusnz
A man who truly believed in an absolute law against killing, may still kill regardless of that law.
Morals .Why bother having any?
Wether or not one believes in the objectivity of his views does not entail apathy towards holding any moral views at all.
if you compare any two laws one will achieve the purpose better than another. the one that achieves it better is the objectively correct law. All your frivolous examples should disappear with this teatment leaving only fundimental principles
Ha ha ha! Determining the ‘better’ law is as objective as determining the right course of action, I agree with you there. Far from revealing fundamental principles it will only reveal the values of the observer.
why wont they be tolerated? because you can accumulate sufficient power to stop them and happen to disagree with them right?
If the social consensus is not to tolerate alternative views, eg. that killing anyone you like is fine, then the authority of the group will be levelled against them. It is analogous to any other kind of ethical system that has malcontents.
Puported by Illusive Mind
Maybe a better law (from the society’s point of view) also governs their beliefs and private behavior.
Anyway, regardless of whether it is the right decision to believe morals are subjective it might still be a socially sanctionable decision (because it might be a little dangerous).
Post a Comment
<< Home