DAY 70 - Ethical Subjectivism - Emotivism, Relativism

Ethical Subjectivism

This is the view that holds that there are no moral facts, although there can be moral values. But if there are no such things as moral facts, where do our ideas about morality come from? Clearly, they must come from somewhere.

1. Emotivism

David Hume, looking smug.

The origin of this theory is often associated with 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume reacted against rationalism, the belief that all human actions are directed by our reason. In this view, all that we do is thought out, at least to some extent. He also argued against the kind of "self-interest" that Hobbes proposed, pointing out that people often do things contrary to their own interest. Hume argued that moral judgments are not the product of reason, but of "sentiment" (passion). The actions one takes are then merely expressions of emotion, rather than reason. If this emotion has rational elements, well and good, but it is still essentially emotional. Right and wrong, then, are just feelings. Morality is like love, it is deeply felt, but it is not meaningful to examine these feelings in any great detail.

Hume's ideas about ethics gained popularity in the 20^th century. One of emotivism's strongest advocates was AJ Ayer. He was part of a movement known as Logical Positivism, which attempted to evaluate all philosophical statements in terms of their "verfiability". If a statement could not be proven empirically (or observed) as true (e.g.--"It is raining") or was true by definition (e.g.-2+2=4), then it was considered nonsense, at least in a logical, philosophical way. Since many arguments in philosophy are difficult to prove, the Logical Positivists threw out much of philosophy. This included ethics, as it is difficult to prove what is good using mathematical equations. Ayer argued that moral statements express only approval or disapproval, and a statement such as "charity is good" had no more meaning than "hooray for charity!"

Logical Positivists differed from the Intuitionists, who argued that good exists, though it cannot be defined; "charity is good" is true, but you can't explain why it is true. For a Logical Positivist, if you couldn't explain something, it was simply nonsense. This theory has the advantage of being very "logical" and scientific, but the flaw of not being able to explain why people do feel that "charity is good" and that it means more to them than "hooray!"

2. Relativism

According to relativists, moral values do exist and are meaningful, but values are not universal and eternal and change from person to person and place to place and time to time. Ethical judgments about right and wrong, in this view, are matters of custom and habit, and not natural truths. They reflect and shape the values of the people who hold them. Thus, it is quite possible that something considered wrong in one place (or by one person), could be considered right in another place (or by another person). This works well at explaining how things once considered right (such as slavery) are now considered wrong. Relativism accepts that in a moral dilemma there will be more than one "right" answer and that there can be more than one morality.

Relativism can be individual or cultural. Individual relativism is the position that each person must create their own moral rules, based on their own, personal criteria. Friederich Nietzsche, for instance, argued that a truly free person must create his/her own moral rules. A truly free person would not be bound by rules set by others, but would be able to rise above the common morality and create their own rules, based on their own truths. The problem with individual relativism is that it might be hard for individuals to agree on any moral common ground. For example, if one person argued "In my opinion, lying is wrong", and listed many reasons, another person might agree with the reasons and still disagree with the opinion. According to individual relativism, they'd both be right. Whose right would be right?

Cultural relativism is similar, but argues that for each social or cultural group certain acts are right, but only for that group and only for reasons related to that group. The actions of the individual are judged by the set of moral values of the group. For example, in a society that approves of polygamy and slavery, I would be morally wrong if I opposed slavery or polygamy. In a different society, one that disapproved of polygamy and slavery, I would be right when I opposed those practices. The values of the individual are judged in context of the society, and each society will have its own rules. Since they are different societies, the moral values of each do not conflict-this is the true "When in Rome" approach to ethics.

The great strength of relativism is its tolerance for other cultures, other ways of doing things. Relativism accepts differences. It is broad-minded, understanding that there can be several approaches to moral dilemmas. And, in many cases, most human societies do agree on right and wrong.

However, the great weakness of relativism is that it denies that there can be a single set of moral values by which all actions should be judged, regardless of where they take place. Are right and wrong relative to time and place? For example, take these issues:

1. Is torture wrong? In Canada, yes, in Syria, no.
2. Is capital punishment wrong? In Canada, yes, in the United States, no.

Can we really stand in judgement of other culture's practices and say "they are wrong"? The relativist would argue no. But this can have some disturbing implications. For example, consider the case of an act considered in Canada so morally reprehensible that its commission warranted a lengthy jail term. If a Canadian were to travel to a country with a different moral (and legal) code, which permitted this act, would this act no longer be morally reprehensible? Should the Canadian be held accountable for it? A relativist might argue that "When in Rome...". However, in regards to international child sex tourism, the Canadian government has taken a different view.

In this case, it might of course be argued that, to paraphrase the old saying, "You can take the Canadian out of Canada, but you can't take the Canada out of the Canadian."