Discuss whether moral judgments are subjective or objective
Discuss whether moral judgments are subjective or
objective
The moral philosophical branch; metaethics concentrates on the discussion of the
definitive meaning, of a moral term. Is it possible for a moral judgment to be
indisputably classified as either, 'good' or 'bad'? Metaethics also focuses on whether
these moral judgments can be justified, and the various approaches that have been
formulated to act as this solid and undoubted rationalization. The acknowledged
translation of Metaethics is applied ethics - philosophers who study this area have
attempted to devise theories that will adequately justify the condemnation of certain acts
such as; murder, theft and rape, as wrong and, the subjection of the deviant to
punishments believed necessary by the conforming norm. Moral judgments are,
judgments, which have a truth-value. The preposition can be interpreted as either 'good'
or 'bad', and thus - due to the various forms of morality adopted by humans worldwide -
a difference of opinion will arise. If a sociologist was to suggest that 'the eating of
children under the age of 4 months is justified', some beings would believe that this was
true, that to be a carnivore is correct and justified. However others may be believe that
such an act is morally wrong and thus condemn it. Moreover it can be seen that it's these
types of statements that have a truth-value. It is believed by philosophers that there are
two categories that accurately reflect the attitudes of intelligent entities towards the
belief in moral judgments. It is possible to be subjective, whereby it is believed
impossible to denounce any action as morally wrong. The followers of subjectivism
would claim that an act of any nature would be judged 'good' or 'bad' according to
personal opinion. Subjectivists would adhere to the proposition that any act - in spite of
perceived wrongdoing - can only be labeled wrong by the individual as his/her opinion.
Morality changes from era to era, person to person - an act can not be condemned as
wrong as in some societies it may be considered correct. However objectivists believe
in a universal right and wrong, all moral judgments have a truth-value - to state murder
is wrong, would in accordance with objectivism be considered true. These moral facts
stay the same throughout time - they never change, it will always be wrong to take
another humans life, always wrong to steal from others. This essay will focuses upon
both ethical objectivism - covering the theological moral realism, Naturalism and
Utilitarianism approaches; and also the ethical subjectivist approaches of Emotivism,
Prescriptivism and Existentialism. Both sides of the argument will be explored in order
to establish whether moral judgments are objective or subjective.
With in philosophy there are various approaches all of which attempt to explain the
existence or non-existence of a moral fact. One such approach is utilitarianism; this is
part of the teleological branch, which comes from the Greek word - 'telos' meaning end.
The teleological branch concentrates on the consequences of ones action; this is in
opposition to deontological - which comes of the Greek word 'dein' meaning duty. This
form focuses on the intention of the person performing the act rather than the act itself.
This school of thought defines good and bad in terms of pleasure and pain, whatever
action brings about the greatest feeling of pleasure deemed good, whilst the action that is
favored by the minority is deemed either bad or neutral. This is otherwise known as the
principal of utility. For example a government may decide to abolish taxes due, as for
the majority of people having tax deducted from their wages causes certain pain. Thus a
community of people can collectively decide whether action taken in the past or action
that is being contemplated is good or bad, based upon its overall effect on the
community. Under these circumstances, moral facts are based upon the judgments of the
community. All moral facts are based upon the question "what course of action will
produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people."
The credibility of utilitarianism focuses on the definition of 'general happiness', early
forms of utilitarianism (Act utilitarianism) founded and advocated by Benthan and Mill
respectively. They promoted basic theory; the principal of utility. The main focus of this
is what makes most happy - as a standard and single objective. However this raised may
objections - it was suggested that many that there is a distinction between 'higher' and
lower' pleasures. Higher pleasures were defined as literature, art and music, activities
that elevated the mind whilst lower pleasures were thought to be the indulgences in
drinking and gambling. ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
forms of utilitarianism (Act utilitarianism) founded and advocated by Benthan and Mill
respectively. They promoted basic theory; the principal of utility. The main focus of this
is what makes most happy - as a standard and single objective. However this raised may
objections - it was suggested that many that there is a distinction between 'higher' and
lower' pleasures. Higher pleasures were defined as literature, art and music, activities
that elevated the mind whilst lower pleasures were thought to be the indulgences in
drinking and gambling. However despite the distinction, lower forms of pleasure, were
still considered a pleasure and therefore in accordance to act utilitarianism accepted.
Thus it was deemed suitable to spend days at a time drunk as long as it would bring
pleasure. However in response Mill argued that pleasure was not something which
satisfied the basic human instincts but increased awareness, henceforth what regarded as
'lower' pleasure did not in fact qualify as thins that brought general happiness. He is
quoted as saying: ' Its better to be an unhappy poet, than a happy pig'. he felt that
intelligence was a greater source of pleasure than ignorance. Happiness - claimed Mill -
was the one true desire of all living breathing entities, and as such it is only therefore on
the basis of happiness on which moral judgments can be made. Yet, this too faces
criticism; what if a situation were too arise where the majority of people wanted
something to be done that was clearly reprehensible wrong. For example, during WWII,
Hitler and his Nazis followers began the extermination of all Jews. The majority people
of Germany agreed with and supported this action- but it is clearly wrong that this should
occur. The Tyranny of Majority would allow morally culpable acts to be carried out
under the principal of utility that it would promote general happiness. There is also a
second branch of utilitarianism - Rule Utilitarianism where it is argued that morality
ought not to be judged on the consequences of an action (teleological) but instead upon
the rules (deontological) that will produced the greatest happiness for the greatest
numbers. Happiness is no longer applicable to individual acts or consequences but
generalized rules. This is evident in the current British legal system - for example it is
illegal to take another persons life. This certainly promotes happiness as people can live
their lives freely. Nevertheless, rule utilitarianism seems to go against the principals of
the original argument; the consequentionalist argument is replaced with a deontological
theory.
Conversely there are many flaws with the utilitarianism theory. The basis of this
approach is that happiness is the ultimate goal for all humans; no explanation is given as
to why this is the case. It has been suggested that it is not happiness but justice which
humans seek. If this is so then the whole concept of 'greatest happiness for greatest
numbers' is lost. In addition, its also been stated that the difference between higher and
lower pleasures is unjust. That the distinction made is not one of greatest pleasure the
taste and opinions of Mill, indeed who is to say that drinking is a lower form of pleasure
that art. Moreover, the argument has also been out forward that 'general happiness' is
impossible to calculate. The consequences of ones actions are unpredictable, it is
unfeasible to identify how our actions will be received by others and therefore this makes
it difficult to determine which actions do and do not promote happiness.
The strengths of the utilitarianism theory is that it provides a relatively easy formula
for right and wrong. The principal of utility is simple and easily understood making this
school of thought accessible to anyone. It appeals to the human sense of logic that
happiness equals good and pain equals bad. On this premise the distinction between good
and bad is easily seen and therefore also easily abided too. Consequences of an action
are rarely considered by individuals, hence the emphasis placed upon the implications of
ones action upon another would lend itself to an improved, more considerate society.
Rule Utilitarianism likewise is a strong theory to uphold, it basis itself upon standard
rules which when applied to society as whole will promote better living. If humans as a
collective group of individuals adhered to these laws then happiness would, in all
probability be achieved. Yet it also has weaknesses, the very fact that this approach
attempts to measure happiness is concerning. Who is to judge what makes one individual
happy? For example sadists seek their pleasure from experiencing and witnessing pain.
This is not applicable to all humans - most of which find on happiness in this was at all.
This in turn raises the question as to whether through this definition of happiness;
utilitarianism excluded the minority of individuals from sharing the greatest happiness.
Happiness is not standard, as all living entities on this earth have a unique genetic make-
up; our sources of pleasure are also unique to ourselves.
A second school of thought that is in keep with the belief in universal moral facts is
Theological Moral Realism; this approach maintains that God determines moral facts. It
appeals to religious thinkers as it claims that all morality comes from God, thus it has
been given the name - the Divine Command Theory. What can be defined as true and as
false depend on what has been written in the holy texts. However a problem with this is
that who is to say what is the word of God and what is not, even if it is the word of God
it is still open to interpretation. This is adopted by many faiths, for example in
Christianity where it is the attitude of all believers that God is the ultimate judge of man-
kind, it is this entity that decides what is right and wrong, this can be seen in the 10
commandments - that all Christians are expected to advocate. When questioning
whether a moral judgment is morally right or wrong, the holy texts are consulted and if it
reflects the written will of God then it is right, if not then it is wrong. However Plato
established a strong and unshakable criticism that has yet to be countered in his book
entitled Euthypro. He asked the simple question:' are things God commands good
because they are commanded by God, or intrinsically good in themselves?' This has
come to be known as the Euthyphro problem, and leaves Theological Moral Realism
weak and irrational. If Gods commands were good because they are not commands from
God, then this would suggest that morality is merely the whims of the creator.
Furthermore it could be argued that if God made it just to eat young babies, then it
would indeed be considered justifiable because God had said so. Moreover, if the reply is
that, Gods commands are inherently good, with or without the approval of God them it is
viable to suggest and accept that God is then not needed for morality as it is independent
of God, and therefore making God unnecessary. The one single strength to this
argument is that morality is not something that humans can ever succeed in
understanding - it is a complex and inconceivable idea that only a higher being can
process. The idea that we are not responsible for right and wrong to an extent is logical.
Our conscience; something believed to be possessed by all humans was not taught or
programmed to accept certain actions. It just exists, and thus the belief that morality is
in the hands of a higher being is reasonable. However the Euthyphro problem - being
unsolvable- has led to this theory being cast aside. It highlights that God is either
unnecessary or whimsical and as there is no foreseeable get-out-clause for this problem
and as a result, leaves Theological Moral Realism an unpopular argument in favor of
objectivism.
The final approach that attempts to justify the belief in eternal and enduring moral
facts is naturalism. It is claimed that human nature alone is enough to provide a solid
basis for moral judgments. If its is accepted that whatever stimulates the intellectual,
emotion, spiritual and physical growth of the individual can be classed as good, whilst
acts that attempts to hinder this growth are deemed bad. Within our known existence
there are certain acts that will always be good for everyone, fro example:' do not
murder'. The ending a person's ability to grow will ultimately be ended - permanently.
Therefore any action that allows individuals to find fulfillment is accepted, whilst any
action that prevents, stunts or ends this growth is bad and is therefore subject to
punishment.
Yet, this belief in universal rights and wrongs is not adhered by all individuals, many
take a subjectivist stance; believing that no act can ever be classed fundamentally wrong.
Acts may only be deemed wrong in accordance with, and in reference to personal
opinion. One of school of thought that takes this approach is emotivism. Emotivism
allows individuals to believe and hold their own system of values and moral judgments,
autonomously. Individuals can be, individual: it is possible and credible - according to
emotivism - that a person may believe it civilized to eat young infants, whilst at the same
time believe murder was wrong. Henceforth there is no such thing as a moral fact. This
system of values is not widely accepted by society; however this does not mean automatic
condemnation, as through emotivism this difference of opinion is justified. People have a
diverse and varying view of morality - an act cannot be condemned, as it does not fall
into what is accepted as the norm. A.J Ayer is the main advocated of this theory. He
maintains that to state: 'murder is wrong' is categorically meaningless. It is not true by
definition (bachelors are unmarried males) nor is it true by observation. This proposal is
merely a reflection of an individual's opinion towards the intended act. Thus statements
of moral belief are literally expressions of human attitude and opinion.
The school of emotivism has close ties with the faction known as logical positivism;
which is most commonly associated to the Vienna Circle including the likes of Schlick,
Carnap, Wittgenstein and Ayer. The main concern of this circle was the Principal of
Verification - a formula that could differentiate between meaningful and non-meaningful
statements. If a statement cannot be verified then it is therefore meaningless. This
philosophical approach has come to be known as 'Humes Fork'. Hume suggested that
statements could either be verified by being true by definition, or true by observation.
Hence to state: ' a dog is a canine creature' would be - according to Hume - true by
definition. Moreover to state: ' Isabelle has blue eyes' would be confirmed through
observation. However to then state: 'euthanasia is justified', is neither true by its
definition, nor can this be demonstrated. Consequently moral facts cannot be
meaningful, and therefore cannot be deemed true or false.
Like utilitarianism, emotivism has received considerable criticism, on the grounds that
in many cases statements can become meaningless, as they are deemed true by definition
or by observation. Thus making many general statements meaningless, the topics of art,
music, literature, love, and religion fall into neither category. In the process emotivism
also write offs many individuals thoughts and ideas as worthless. If the principal of
verification is upheld then the majority of conversation is literally insignificant.
Moreover the principal of verification cannot even pass its own test, as it is neither true
by definition or by observation. Thus why should we base all moral judgments on a
formula that fails its own test? Consequently; the conclusions and results of this
principal are largely disagreeable. For example the sacrifice of children is in the opinion
of some wrong, but if an emotive stance is taken then it is impossible to condemn for put
forward any acceptable or credible argument in order to dissuade this action from being
continued. This is also known as moral relativism, is it possible to believe that whether a
person conforms of is deviant is merely a matter of taste. If this is accepted then
punishment is inflicted upon the deviant because the acts are against the laws of society.
The laws are representative of the dominant views and attitudes of society. Therefore
those who commit 'wrong' are merely acting in a way that is found unacceptable to the
majority of people - why then should they be punished just for being different?
Emotivism makes the chastisement of 'criminals' hard to justify. The punishment of the
deviant is not something with a moral basis, but the failure of some to meet the standards
of behavior expected by society. Indeed, people are not reprimanded for failing to be
well read and knowledgeable also why should those actions fail to adequately satisfy
society be disciplined.
One approach based upon the subjectivist foundation is prescriptivisim, it is very
similar to Emotivism, owing to the belief in that moral judgments do not have a truth-
value. However moral judgments should be seen as advice or prescriptions. If one
says: 'stealing is wrong', then this should be considered and evaluated so that
consequences of actions will be realized, which will in turn help the individual to see that
the action is not beneficial to anybody, including themselves. In spite of this, criticism
has been focuses on the varying advice and moral conscience of individuals. One piece of
advice may provoke different reaction sin some to others and therefore this approach has
no consistency. People have different experiences to draw on; thus someone who had
worked with street children in Brazil may believe that in certain cases to steal for food if
your starving is acceptable, whereas for someone who had only experience affluence
stealing in all forms in intolerable.
The final subjective stance is Existentialism which has been promoted by Kierkegaard
Nietzsche- and which basis its foundations on the human's ability to chose.
Existentialists would claim that moral facts do not exist but values do. The individuals
that possess them and chose to uphold them bring these values, into existence. They
stress the importance of the person's decision to chose and question their moral stance.
These collective groups of judgments reflect the personality of such individuals, as the
formation of judgments will be based upon personal experience, inner conviction and
strength of conscience. Furthermore, for one to suggest 'murder is wrong' is an
expression of the way in which one intends to lead their life, in the belief that murder is
wrong, to condemn those who murder, and for that individual to never participate in any
activity that will result in murder. As humans are free to choose their own stance on
moral topics, moral judgments will not be coherent and henceforth, they must risk and
accept the results and consequences of the morals and values that they themselves have
chosen to hold. These moral beliefs are not absolute moral truths but rather and
extension of ones personality.
Therefore to conclude it is evident that there are many arguments in favor of both
subjectivism and objectivism. Utilitarianism focuses on the premise that whatever gives
most pleasure to the most number of people can be considered a moral judgment.
However, naturalism would suggest that whatever acts promotes an individual
physically, intellectual, mentally, emotionally and spiritually must be considered a moral
fact upon which judgments should be made. Theological Moral Realism nevertheless, is
of the opinion that all moral facts come from a higher being. The universal and infinite
rights and wrongs are written in the holy texts and should be abided too rigorously. In
opposition nonetheless is subjectivism; the fundamental arguments in this school of
thought is Emotivism - which basis's its foundations on the belief that moral judgments
can be denounced as simply personal opinion, which hold no weight to anyone other than
themselves. An extension of emotivism furthermore is prescriptivism, which claims that
moral judgments should be considered as advice, upon which people are free act in
anyway that they believe correct. Existentialists, would argue that instead of the
existence of eternal moral facts, the individuals belief in right and wrong are merely part
of their personality. As the philosopher Nietzsche stated: ' I must find a truth that is
true...... the idea for which I can live and die', the existence of this truth is still concealed
and has yet (if ever) to be discovered.
Word Count 3,443
(sorry but I started and just couldn't stop - it just a shame I don't need to write a
dissertation for philosophy, because this could be it)
Happy Marking!
