Applying Subjectivism To The Assessment Of Moral Statements

A key question we have come across in philosophy is whether or not moral statements can be considered objectively true or false rather than subjectively true or false. Objective truths are declarations that are universally true and independent of human psychology and opinion. In other words, the Earth will always revolve around the sun regardless of human existence or human acknowledgement of the sun’s path. Subjective truths are statements that are true so long as the speaker believes it to be true. For example, if a person truly believes that pickles are disgusting and says “Pickles are disgusting”, the said statement is subjectively true. Objectively and subjectively false statements operate in the same manner in that objectively false declarations will always be false and subjectively false statements vary by individual.

The same set of definitions cannot be applied to moral statements since no one can prove the objective truth (or falseness) of a moral statement. As a result, subjectivism arose as a counterargument to objectivism in moral debates. Subjectivism can be separated into cultural relativism (also known as conventionalism) and simple subjectivism. Simple subjectivism interprets moral judgements as true or false depending on the individual speaker. The term implies that an individual is merely reflecting agreement or disagreement with a moral or value, and so their moral statement cannot be considered objectively true or false. Emotivism, on the other hand, portrays moral judgements as neither true nor false since these judgements should only be seen as commands or attitudes, according to Emotivists. Charles L. Stevenson pioneered the idea that “ethical terms are used much like exclamative and imperative sentences (‘Hooray!’, ‘Be kind’) to express a speaker’s affective, noncognitive psychological states, such as approval or disapproval, rather than to describe (or in addition to describing) some action, person, institution, etc.”

The three underlying for subjectivism over objectivism in moral statements include the anthropological argument, the argument from tolerance, and the lack of proof argument. The anthological argument is based on the belief that moral values vary in time, space, and culture (Diversity Thesis) and that as a result, the truth or falseness of a moral statement depends on the beliefs of the culture in which it is being made (Dependency Thesis). While the result may seem logical at first, there is actually a logical gap between the two propositions, which is why the anthropological argument is flawed.

The second argument for subjectivism, against objectivism, is the argument from tolerance which uses three propositions:

1. tolerance is a good thing,
2. to be tolerant, we must believe that other beliefs/values are wrong, and
3. therefore, we must be subjectivists.

However, the assumption that “tolerance is a good thing” is in and of itself, a moral judgement with no concrete foundational proof that leads us to believe it must be true, and therefore, we reject this argument. The third and strongest argument for subjectivism and against objectivism is the lack of proof argument which contends that we have not yet developed a working proof system for moral statement since moral statements are completely different from factual statements. Therefore, if a moral statement cannot be proven true or false, we cannot hold it as either objectively true or false.

Philosopher David Hume determined that there were two methods to prove the truth of a factual statement, namely by observation and deduction (Hume’s Fork). Observation (or proof by ostension) uses sensory perceptions to prove a statement as either true or false. Nevertheless, observation does not work for moral statements since there is no way to physically show a person that “killing babies is morally wrong”. While people may point out that killing babies causes the pain or killing babies will cause the emotional suffering of their parents, these factual statements are still not sufficient in proving the truth of the moral statement, “killing babies is morally wrong”.

The second method of proof is through deduction, which is essentially making a logically sound inference based on true premises. The output statement one gets can be be absolutely true or relatively true based on the premises/inputs. Yet, attempts at proving moral statements through deduction yield no result. The premises need to contain a mix of both factual and normative statements in order to logically deduce the conclusion of a moral statement. This requirement leads to a dilemma since normative premises would need to be proven themselves, which results in an infinite loop of proof attempts.

All in all, both simple subjectivism and emotivism hold the underlying assumption that objectivism cannot be applied to moral statements. Subjectivism argues for the truthfulness and falseness of statements as determined by individuals. Emotivism holds that moral statements are neither true nor false since they are merely reflecting emotions or opinions. While both forms of subjectivism have serious flaws— for example, both simple subjectivists and emotivists assume moral judgements are never wrong—both theories of ethics have contributed to the study of ethics within philosophy.