SUBJECTIVISM

Some philosophers hold that morality is subjective. And what they mean by this is that moral claims are either (a) mere expressions of our feelings, or (b) mere reports of our feelings. The former view is often called emotivism, while the latter view is usually referred to as simple subjectivism.

Emotivism

When you say “Abortion is wrong”, what you are saying, roughly, is “Boo! abortion”, and when you say “Telling the truth is morally right” you are saying “Yeah! truth-telling”.

So moral judgments are mere expressions of our feelings towards actions.

Problems with emotivism

When we say things like “Abortion is wrong”, or “Slavery is wrong”, we take ourselves to be saying things that are true (or false). But moral claims, on the emotivist’s view, are not the sorts of things that can be true or false.

We take ourselves and others to have moral beliefs and perhaps even moral knowledge. But the emotivist’s analysis of moral judgments is not consistent with this.

We engage in what appear to be genuine disputes with others concerning issues of right and wrong. But emotivism does not allow from genuine moral disagreement. When you say “Abortion is always wrong” and I say “Abortion is not always wrong”, our claims do not contradict each other.

There is no room to say that people have mistaken moral views. If you think slavery is morally permissible, for example, we cannot say that your moral view is incorrect.

Simple Subjectivism

When you say “Abortion is wrong” you are not, as the emotivist claims, expressing your feelings about abortion. Rather, you are reporting your feelings (or attitudes). So when you say “Abortion is wrong”, what you are saying is something like “I don’t like (or I disapprove of) abortion”.

This view is something of an improvement over emotivism. Moral claims, on this view, are capable of truth and falsity. And simple subjectivism allows that we have moral beliefs and even moral knowledge.

Problems with Simple Subjectivism

Like emotivism, this view does not allow for genuine moral disagreement and for moral mistakes.

If you say “Euthanasia is always wrong” and I say “Euthanasia is not always wrong”, we are not making claims that contradict each other. Moral disagreements are just differences in taste.

If you think it is morally okay to torture infants for fun, we cannot say that you are mistaken to think this.

MORAL (OR CULTURAL) RELATIVISM

This is the view that when making moral claims, you are not making a claim merely about your own attitudes. Rather, you are making a claim about the attitudes or customs of the people in your culture.

For example, when you say “It is wrong to sell one’s organs” you are saying, roughly, “In Canada, it is not the custom to sell one’s organs”.

This view is an improvement over simple subjectivism. It accommodates the idea that moral claims are true or false, and that we can have moral beliefs and moral knowledge.

Moreover, it provides some room for disagreement and moral mistakes. If you say “Abortion is always wrong” and I say “Abortion is sometimes permissible”, we are engaged in a genuine disagreement. We are making claims that contradict each other.

And if you say, “Abortion is always wrong”, there is room to say that your moral view is incorrect.

Problems with Moral Relativism

It does not allow from cross-cultural disagreement. If I say that genocide is wrong, whereas a person from another country says that genocide is morally permissible, we are not making claims that contradict each other. There is no disagreement.

It does not allow for a culture to have mistaken moral views. If it is the custom in our society to prohibit abortion, then abortion is wrong (in our society). If it were the custom in our society to practice genocide, then genocide would be right.

In short, moral relativism makes moral criticism of accepted customs impossible.

SUMMARY

Ordinary moral thought and practice tells against subjectivism and relativism, and supports the idea that morality is objective in some important sense. It supports the idea that when we say, e.g., that slavery is wrong, we are making a claim that is true (or false), and its truth (or falsity) is independent of how you or I, or our culture, happens to feel about slavery.

CLASSICAL UTILITARIANISM

The right action to perform in any given situation is the action that would maximize overall good.

Good = happiness.

Thus, the right action to perform in any given situation is the action that would maximize overall happiness. You will see this referred to as the “principle of utility” or the “greatest happiness principle”.

Notice that the right thing to do, according to utilitarianism, is not the action that would make you the happiest. The right thing to do is the action that would produce the most happiness among all those affected by your action.

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, the view that actions are right (or wrong) in virtue of their consequences. Actions are right or wrong, according to utilitarianism, in virtue of the amount of happiness (or unhappiness) they produce.

Utilitarianism has a number of things going for it. For example:

It provides us with a single principle by means of which we can determine whether a given action is right or wrong.

It holds that each no person’s happiness is more important than another’s.

Despite these attractive features, however, utilitarianism is not without problems.

Some critics object that utilitarianism cannot recognize morally significant relationships between ourselves and others.

To illustrate, suppose I find myself in a situation in which I can help a friend who has helped me in the past, or help a complete stranger. And suppose further that, for various reasons, helping the stranger would produce more overall happiness. Then, according to utilitarianism, the right thing to do is to save the stranger. Critics object, however, that I have a duty to help my friend, since he has helped me out in the past.

Critics also object that utilitarianism requires us to do things which are morally evil. E.g., it implies that we ought morally to kill babies with certain birth defects if doing this would maximize overall happiness (and minimize suffering).

DEONTOLOGICAL THEORIES

Deontological theories hold that actions are right or wrong independently of their consequences.

Immanuel Kant is perhaps the most notable and influential deontologist. Kant argued that there is one “supreme principle” or “moral law”, namely, the “categorical imperative”:

“One must act to treat every person as an end and never as a means only”.

The underlying idea here is just that we ought always to treat persons with the respect and dignity they deserve. So we are not to use them merely as a means - as a tool or instrument - to our own ends.

It is important to note that Kant is not saying that we cannot use others as a means. He says only that we ought not to use others as a mere means.

The categorical imperative grounds a number of duties we have to others. For example, we have a duty to tell the truth, to help those in need when we can do so without significant personal sacrifice, to repay debts, to keep our promises, etc. Notice that a failure to act in accord with these duties involves treating others as mere means.

Kant’s view has the virtue that it avoids some of the implausible implications of utilitarianism. But it also has implications which many find objectionable.

Consider, e.g., cases of lying; the case of the conjoined twins.

VIRTUE ETHICS

The previous two theories, Utilitarianism and Kant’s deontological view, focus on the question: How should I act? Each purports to provide principles which correctly specify how we ought, morally, to act.

Virtue ethics focuses instead on the question: What kind of person should I be?

Virtue ethicists deny that there are any general moral principles which hold without exception. Thus, they deny that we ought always to maximize happiness, or that we ought always to tell the truth. For in some circumstances we should not do these things.

We come to know what to do in certain circumstances, according to virtue ethics, not by applying general moral principles, but by being a certain kind of person – namely, a virtuous person.

A virtuous person is someone who possesses the virtues, those traits of character necessary for humans to live a flourishing life. Examples of virtues: kindness, honesty, loyalty, justice.

Objections to Virtue Ethics

First objection: Virtue theory does not provide us with any practical guidance. We want to know we we ought, morally, to do in certain situations, and virtue ethics does not help us to determine this.

Reply: Virtue theory does provide practical guidance. If you are wondering whether you ought to perform some action in a certain situation, you can ask yourself whether the virtuous person would perform the action, or whether you would be acting justly, or kindly, etc., if you were to perform the action.

Second objection: The “application” of virtue ethics to concrete situations leads to conflict. The virtues of loyalty and honesty suggest that I ought to tell my friend that her boyfriend is seeing someone else. The virtue of kindness suggests that I ought not to tell her, since this will hurt her.

Reply: This problem is not unique to virtue ethics. For example, the deontologist’s rules can and do conflict.