Ethics! Module 6: Ethical Subjectivism

Photo: Michael Schur / NBC.

Disagreements over what is right and what is wrong never seem to end. As a result, we might just accept that individual people just feel very differently about morality, and there is no deeper truth to the matter. This suggests a form of Moral Relativism known as Ethical Subjectivism, which holds that morality is relative to our own individual, personal feelings. So we continue our exploration of Moral Relativism by considering such subjectivism.

There are 4 learning outcomes for this module. When you finish it, you will be able to…

Explain Ethical Subjectivism and how it is a form of Moral Relativism,
Analyze David Hume’s defense of Ethical Subjectivism,
Reflect on what it would mean if your moral reasoning was guided solely by your emotions, and
Summarize a reductio ad absurdum argument against Ethical Subjectivism.

Read & Annotate This:

Subjectivism in Ethics

Context

Recall that according to Moral Relativism there are no objective and universal moral values, norms, and principles that apply to all people everywhere. Instead, this position affirms that whether it is morally right or wrong for a person to act in a certain way depends on (“is relative to”) either cultural or individual acceptance. So far, we have examined Cultural Relativism (morality is a matter of social/cultural acceptance) and seen some problems with it.

The reading for this module now considers the second form of moral relativism: Ethical Subjectivism. Ethical Subjectivism argues that morality is a matter of individual acceptance; that is, morality is solely determined by one’s own personal reactions or feelings. James Rachels and Stuart Rachels (2012) summarize and then reject this view about the nature of morality.

While I will summarize the position of David Hume (1739–1740/1978, 1777/1975) on Ethical Subjectivism, you might be curious to read what he actually said. If so, I have included (in the optional “Curious for More?” section below) two passages from his work. There he argues that morality is based only individual sentiment and emotion, and not on reason.

Reading Questions

As you read, keep these questions in mind:

James Rachels and Stuart Rachels mainly focus on one popular form of Ethical Subjectivism, which they call “Emotivism”. While fairly simplistic, for our purposes this is close enough to what subjectivists actually defends. How does justification in ethics work according to Emotivism? In other words, if Emotivism is correct, what is the “right” way for getting others to agree with you concerning what is morally right and what is morally wrong?
Why do Rachels and Rachels believe that Emotivism, and Ethical Subjectivism more generally, are flawed?

Although I strongly suggest that you write out brief answers to these questions, you do not have to turn in written responses. You do, however, need to be prepared to answer questions like these on module quizzes and the unit exams.

References

Hume, D. (1975). An enquiry concerning the principles of morals. In L. A. Shelby-Bigge & P. H. Nidditch (Eds.), Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work from 1777)

Hume, D. (1978). A treatise of human nature (L. A. Shelby-Bigge & P. H. Nidditch, Eds.; 2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work from 1739–1740).

Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2012). Subjectivism in ethics. In The elements of moral philosophy (7th ed., pp. 32–48). McGraw-Hill.