Subjectivism in Ethics James Rachels & Stuart Rachels What are morals? The Basic Idea of Ethical Subjectivism People have different opinions, but where morality is concerned, there are no ‘facts,’ and no one is ‘right.’ People just feel differently, and that’s all there is to it. What are moral truths? Different from moral standards Some Implications It is a fact that the Nazis exterminated millions of innocent people. According to ethical subjectivism, it is not a fact that what they did was objectively evil. Some Implications According to ethical subjectivism, when we say that the actions of the Nazis were evil, we are merely expressing our negative subjective feelings toward them. The same applies to any moral judgment whatsoever. The Evolution of the Theory It began as a simple idea—in the words of David Hume (1711-1776), that morality is a matter of sentiment rather than fact. But as objections were raised to the theory, and as its defenders tried to answer the objections, the theory became more sophisticated. The First Stage: Simple Subjectivism When a person says that something is morally good or bad, this means that he or she approves of that thing, or disapproves of it, and nothing more. Objections to Simple Subjectivism Simple Subjectivism Cannot Account for Disagreement. Moral statements simply reflect preference. We cannot disagree about what another person’s sincerely stated preference is. Falwell: ʺHomosexuality is immoral. The so‐called ʹgay rightsʹ are not rights at all, because immorality is not right.ʺ Subjectivist: “I agree.” (For the subjectivist, this merely means: “It is true that you have feelings of disapproval toward homosexuality.” The subjectivist’s own feelings are irrelevant .) It's very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or as I like to call it: marriage. You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not “gay lunch”. I parked my car; I didn't “gay park” it. Liz Feldman We seem to experience actual disagreement with others about moral issues. Objections to Simple Subjectivism Simple Subjectivism Implies That We’re Always Right. So long as people honestly represent their feelings, their moral judgments will always be correct and indisputable. Falwell: “Homosexuality is immoral.” Subjectivist: “You’re right.” (For the subjectivist, this still merely means: “It is true that you have feelings of disapproval toward homosexuality.” The subjectivist’s own feelings are irrelevant .) We seem to acknowledge moral error in both ourselves and in others. The Second Stage: Emotivism Moral language is not fact-stating language; it is not used to convey information or to make reports. Charles L. Stevenson (1908-1979) Moral language is instead used as a means of influencing other people’s behavior or expressing one’s own attitudes. The Second Stage: Emotivism Stevenson: “Any statement about any fact which any speaker considers likely to alte ...

1. Subjectivism in Ethics
James Rachels
&
Stuart Rachels
What are morals?
The Basic Idea of Ethical Subjectivism
People have different opinions, but where morality is
concerned, there are no ‘facts,’ and no one is ‘right.’ People
just feel differently, and that’s all there is to it.
What are moral truths?
Different from moral standards

2. Some Implications
It is a fact that the Nazis exterminated millions of innocent
people.
According to ethical subjectivism, it is not a fact that what they
did was objectively evil.
Some Implications
According to ethical subjectivism, when we say that the actions
of the Nazis were evil, we are merely expressing our negative
subjective feelings toward them.
The same applies to any moral judgment whatsoever.
The Evolution of the Theory
It began as a simple idea—in the words of David Hume (1711-
1776), that morality is a matter of sentiment rather than fact.
But as objections were raised to the theory, and as its defenders
tried to answer the objections, the theory became more
sophisticated.
The First Stage: Simple Subjectivism
When a person says that something is morally good or bad, this
means that he or she approves of that thing, or disapproves of it,

3. and nothing more.
Objections to Simple Subjectivism
Simple Subjectivism Cannot Account for Disagreement.
Moral statements simply reflect preference. We cannot disagree
about what another person’s sincerely stated preference is.
Falwell: ʺHomosexuality is immoral. The so‐called ʹgay rightsʹ
are not rights at all, because immorality is not right.ʺ
Subjectivist: “I agree.” (For the subjectivist, this merely
means: “It is true that you have feelings of disapproval toward
homosexuality.” The subjectivist’s own feelings are irrelevant
.)
It's very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or as I like to
call it: marriage. You know, because I had lunch this afternoon,
not “gay lunch”. I parked my car; I didn't “gay park” it.
Liz Feldman
We seem to experience actual disagreement with others about
moral issues.
Objections to Simple Subjectivism
Simple Subjectivism Implies That We’re Always Right.
So long as people honestly represent their feelings, their moral
judgments will always be correct and indisputable.

4. Falwell: “Homosexuality is immoral.”
Subjectivist: “You’re right.” (For the subjectivist, this still
merely means: “It is true that you have feelings of disapproval
toward homosexuality.” The subjectivist’s own feelings are
irrelevant .)
We seem to acknowledge moral error in both ourselves and in
others.
The Second Stage: Emotivism
Moral language is not fact-stating language; it is not used to
convey information or to make reports. Charles L. Stevenson
(1908-1979)
Moral language is instead used as a means of influencing other
people’s behavior or expressing one’s own attitudes.
The Second Stage: Emotivism
Stevenson: “Any statement about any fact which any speaker
considers likely to alter attitudes may be adduced as a reason
for or against an ethical judgment.”
This seems unacceptable. Misleading and irrelevant statements
are not good reasons for supporting a moral judgment.

5. The Second Stage: Emotivism
When Jerry Falwell says, “Homosexuality is immoral,”
emotivists interpret his utterance as equivalent to something
like: “Homosexuality—gross!” or, “Don’t be gay!”
The Second Stage: Emotivism
Accordingly, we may agree in all our judgments about our
attitudes, yet disagree in our attitudes.
For the emotivist, moral disagreements are disagreements in
attitudes, not about attitudes. They are disagreements in which
one’s desires (rather than beliefs) conflict with those of another.
What’s the difference?
Simple Subjectivism vs. Emotivism
Simple subjectivism interprets moral judgments as statements
that can be true or false, so a sincere speaker is always right
when it comes to moral judgments.
Emotivism, on the other hand, interprets moral judgments as
either commands or attitudes; as such, they can be neither true

6. nor false.
Simple Subjectivism vs. Emotivism
Although emotivism is an improvement on simple subjectivism,
both theories imply that our moral judgments are, in a
fundamental sense, beyond reproach.
Neither a simple subjectivist nor an emotivist can view a moral
judgment as wrong. Such a judgment is merely a statement
regarding approval or an expression of attitude.
The Role of Reason in Ethics
A moral judgment must be supported by good reasons.
This is different from saying, “I like peaches.” I don’t need to
give any reasons for liking peaches.
The Role of Reason in Ethics
When I say, “Liberty is morally better than slavery,” the
emotivist hears this as similar to: “Peaches are better than
apples.”
Reason can play no important role here.

7. The Role of Reason in Ethics
The flaws of emotivism cast doubt on the whole idea of ethical
subjectivism.
Reason is important in ethics.
Values are not tangible things like planets, trees, and spoons.
However, this does not mean that ethics has no objective basis.
People have not only feelings but also reason, and these two are
fundamentally distinct.
Moral truths are truths of reason. They are objective in the
sense that they are true independently of what we might want or
think.
Are There Proofs in Ethics?
When we compare ethics to science, ethics seems to be lacking
in objectivity.
For example, we can prove that dinosaurs lived on the Earth
before humans, but we cannot seem to prove whether an ethical
issue such as abortion is immoral or not.
No Proofs in Ethics?
This attitude is suspect. If we can provide good reasons for our
moral judgments, we may accept them as sufficient proof.
Consider:
Moral judgment: Jones is a bad man.

8. Proof: He is a habitual liar who toys with people and cheats
when he can get away with it. He once killed someone in a
dispute over 37 cents.
People confuse proving an opinion to be correct with persuading
someone to accept that proof. An argument may be good, yet
fall on deaf ears.
The Question of Homosexuality
Examined objectively, claims that homosexuals pose some sort
of threat to the rest of society turn out to have no factual basis.
The case against homosexuality generally reduces to the claim
that it is ‘unnatural’ or that it is against religion.
Homosexuals are not ‘unnatural.’
Considered statistically, if being homosexual is deemed
‘unnatural,’ then so is being left-handed, tall, or immensely
nice.
Homosexuals are not ‘unnatural.’
If homosexual sex is considered ‘unnatural’ due to the thought
that the ‘natural’ function of the genitals is procreation, then
other widely accepted sex practices should also be deemed
‘unnatural,’ such as heterosexual sex using birth control or for

9. pleasure.
Homosexuals are not ‘unnatural.’
If ‘unnatural’ is used simply as a term of negative valuation, to
say that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ is to make a vacuous
statement equivalent to: “Homosexuality is wrong because it is
wrong.”
The Biblical Argument
Homosexuality must be wrong because the Bible says so (in
Leviticus, for example 18:22).
Consider, however, what else the Bible forbids (also in
Leviticus):
Eating sheep’s fat (7:23)
Letting a woman into the church’s sanctuary who has recently
given birth (12:2-5)
Seeing one’s uncle naked (18:14, 26)
Like homosexuality, this is deemed an abomination.
Cursing one’s parents (20:9)
This is punishable by death.
Note that Leviticus also says we may purchase slaves from
nearby nations (25:44).

10. Keep in mind. . .
The point is not to ridicule the Bible; it has some good stuff,
too. We may nevertheless conclude that what is written in the
Bible is not always right.
Since the Bible is not always right, we cannot conclude that
homosexuality is an abomination just because the Bible says so.
Back to the Main Point
Moral thinking and moral conduct are a matter of weighing
reasons and being guided by them.
Being guided by reason is very different from following one’s
feelings.
If we ignore reason and merely go with our feelings, we opt out
of moral thinking altogether.
Thus, ethical subjectivism seems to be going in the wrong
direction.
Does Morality Depend on Religion?

11. The Presumed Connection Between Morality and Religion
In popular thinking, morality and religion are inseparable.
People commonly believe that morality can be understood only
in the context of religion.
Clergy and those considered pious are thus regarded as moral
experts who will give sound moral advice.
The Scientific View of the Universe
When viewed from a nonreligious perspective, the universe
seems to be a cold, meaningless place, devoid of value and
purpose.
“That all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the
inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are
destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and
that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be
buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins. . . are yet so
nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope
to stand.” (Bertrand Russell, 1902)
The Divine Command Theory
Behavior is considered morally right if it is commanded by God
and morally wrong if it is forbidden.
This seems to solve the objectivity problem in ethics. Ethics is
not merely a matter of personal feeling or social custom. It is
God’s will.
The theory also provides a powerful reason for people to bother

12. with morality. Divine punishment is not a pleasant prospect;
reward, however, is very appealing.
Serious Problems with DC Theory
Socrates asked Euthyphro:
Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods
command it because it is right?
It is right because God commands it.
This conception of morality is mysterious.
It makes God’s commands arbitrary.
It provides the wrong reasons for moral principles.
God commands it because it is right.
This leads to a different problem. We acknowledge a standard
that is independent of God’s will. The rightness exists prior to
God’s command and is the reason for the command.
The Theory of Natural Law
On this view, the world has a rational order, with values and
purposes built into its very nature.
Derived from the ancient Greeks who believed that everything
in nature has a purpose (telos).
There is a neat hierarchy, with humans conveniently situated
atop all other life forms on the Earth.

13. The Theory of Natural Law
“If then we are right in believing that nature makes nothing
without some end in view, nothing to no purpose, it must be that
nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man.”
(Aristotle, 384-322 B.C.)
The Theory of Natural Law
The ‘laws of nature’ describe not only how things are but also
how things ought to be.
The world is in harmony when things serve their natural
purposes.
When they do not, or cannot, things have gone wrong.
‘Natural’ acts are morally right, and ‘unnatural’ acts are
morally wrong.
Serious Problems with NL Theory
The idea that what’s natural is good seems open to obvious
counterexamples.
What about disease, for example?

14. Serious Problems with NL Theory
The theory seems to involve a confusion of is and ought.
For example: Just because sex can be for reproduction, it does
not follow that sex ought or ought not to be engaged in only for
that purpose.
Serious Problems with NL Theory
The theory conflicts with modern science, where ‘natural laws’
are deemed to work blindly and without purpose.
How can we determine what is right or wrong?
According to natural law theory, the natural laws that specify
what we should do are laws of reason, which we are able to
grasp because God has given us the power to understand them.
Moral judgments are ‘dictates of reason.’
This endorses the idea that the right thing to do is whatever
course of conduct has the best reasons on its side.
This means that the religious believer has no special access to
moral truth. Believer and nonbeliever alike receive equal
powers of reasoning from nature.

15. Religion and Particular Moral Issues
Are there distinctively religious positions on major moral issues
that believers must accept?
The rhetoric of the pulpit suggests so. But there is good reason
to think otherwise.
Religion and Particular Moral Issues
It is often difficult to find specific moral guidance in the
Scriptures, particularly regarding controversial issues that seem
urgent to us today.
Religious authorities disagree, leaving the believer to choose
which interpretation to accept.
Religion and Particular Moral Issues
People often make up their minds about moral issues – and then
interpret the Scriptures or church tradition in a way that
supports the moral conclusions they have already reached.

16. Abortion
Conservatives sometimes say that, according to Christianity,
fetal life is sacred.
Is this the Christian view?
A few words are lifted from a biblical passage, and those words
are then construed in a way that condemns abortion.
Other biblical passages are interpreted as pointing strongly to a
liberal support of abortion.
Even if there is little scriptural basis for it, the contemporary
church’s stand is strongly anti-abortion.
The church has not always taken this view, however.
Conclusion
Right and wrong do not have to be understood in terms of God’s
will.
Morality is a matter of reason and conscience, not faith.
Religious considerations do not provide definitive solutions to
many of the controversial ethical issues that we face today.
The arguments we have considered do not assume that
Christianity or any other theological system is false. They
merely show that even if such a system is true, morality remains
an independent issue.
Due Next Tuesday
Write a two page paper discussing the philosophies covered thus

17. far and how each fails to meet the Minimum Conception of
morality by failing the test of impartiality or reason.
I know there are papers online about this….
Just sayin’
Ethics in Comp Games & Cinema
Prof. Jay Margalus
What is morality?
Question: Is it possible to define the word “ethics”?
What is morality?
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong
or good and bad behavior.
… but what the heck does that mean?
What is morality?

18. Socrates’ answer: “How we ought to live”
Is simple, but not prescriptive
Rachels suggests a minimum conception of morality. A
baseline.
But first! A note!
Reason & Impartiality
Argument
An argument is a collection of statements or propositions
intended to persuade others that an idea is, or is not, true.
Premise
The premises of an argument are the statements that are
intended to provide the support or evidence. The conclusion of
an argument is that statement or proposition for which the
premises are intended to provide support. (In short, it is the
point the argument is trying to make.)
(Important note: premises are always intended to provide

19. support or evidence for the conclusion, but they don't always
succeed! It's still an argument, and there are still premises and a
conclusion, even if the premises don't really provide any
support at all.)
Validity
An argument is valid if it actually is impossible for the
premises to be true and the conclusion false, or if the
conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
Otherwise, the argument is invalid.
Moral Reasoning
We cannot rely on our feelings, no matter how powerful they
might be.
Our feelings may be irrational and may be nothing but products
of prejudice, selfishness, or cultural conditioning.
Our decisions must be guided as much as possible by reason.
The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported
by the arguments.
Impartiality
Each individual’s interests are equally important, and no one
should get special treatment.

20. If there is no good reason for treating people differently, then
discrimination is unacceptably arbitrary.
Minimum Conception of Morality
Minimum Conception of Morality
“it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the
measure of right and wrong”
Example One: Baby Theresa
Anencephalic infants: ‘babies without brains’
Cerebrum, cerebellum, and top of skull are missing
Have a brain stem, thus autonomic functions (breathing,
heartbeat, etc.) are possible
Usually aborted in the US; otherwise, half are stillborn and
usually die within days
Parents volunteered her organs…
Florida law forbids the removal of organs until the donor is
dead.

21. Baby Theresa died after nine days. Her organs were too
deteriorated to be harvested or transplanted.
Should she have been killed so that her organs could have been
used to save other children?
(Thousands of infants need transplants each year.)
Arguments
“It just seems too horrifying to use people as means to other
people’s ends.”
“It’s unethical to kill person A to save person B.”
“What the parents are really asking for is, ‘Kill this dying baby
so that its organs may be used for someone else.’ Well, that’s
really a horrendous proposition.”
Is it ethical to kill one person to save another?
Trolley Problem
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks.
Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to
move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing
some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull
this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks.
However, you notice that there is one person on the side track.

22. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the
five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the
trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which
is the correct choice?
Trolley Problem
As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five
people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you
can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it
happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to
stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the
track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
Trolley Problem
Villain variant
Getting back to it…
The Benefits Argument
If we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, we
ought to do so.

23. Transplanting the organs would benefit the other children
without harming Baby Theresa.
Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs.
What about her life?
Isn’t being alive better than being dead?
Only if being alive allows one to ‘have a life’: to carry on
activities and have thoughts, feelings, and relations with other
people.
In the absence of such things, ‘mere biological life’ is
worthless.
We shouldn’t use people as a means
It is wrong to use people as means to other people’s ends.
Taking Theresa’s organs would be using her to benefit other
children.
Therefore, it should not be done.
How is she being used?
Vague sense of ‘use.’ What does it mean? Violating Baby
Theresa’s autonomy?
Baby Theresa has no autonomy to violate. She has no
preferences about anything, nor has she ever had any.

24. The Wrongness of Killing Argument
It is wrong to kill one person to save another.
Taking Theresa’s organs would be killing her to save others.
So, taking the organs would be wrong.
However…
Shouldn’t there be an exception to the rule?
Baby Theresa is not conscious; she will never ‘have a life’; she
is going to die soon anyway; and taking her organs would help
other babies.
Should we regard Baby Theresa as already ‘dead’?
Perhaps we should revise our definitions of ‘death.’
Example Two: Jodie and Mary
Conjoined twins, joined at the lower abdomen; spines fused; one
heart and one pair of lungs between them.
Without an operation to separate them, both twins would die
within six months.
This would save Jodie, but Mary would die.
The parents refused permission for the operation, but courts
okayed it.
Jodie lived, and Mary died.

25. Save as Many as We Can Argument
There is a choice: save one or let both die.
Isn’t it plainly better to save one?
Not from the parents’ perspective.
Sanctity of Human Life Argument
All human life is precious, regardless of age, race, social class,
or handicap.
The prohibition against killing innocent humans is absolute.
Mary is an innocent human being.
Therefore, she should not be killed.
However
Mary would not be ‘killed’ during the operation but merely
separated from Jodie. Her death would be due to her body’s
inability to sustain her life.
Perhaps it is not always wrong to kill innocent human beings. . .
If the innocent human has no future because she is going to die
soon no matter what. . . AND. . .
She has no wish to go on living (perhaps because she has no
wishes at all). . . AND. . .
This killing will save others who can go on to lead ‘full lives.’

26. Example Three: Tracy Latimer
12-year-old victim of cerebral palsy, killed by her father with
exhaust fumes while the rest of the family were at church.
Tracy weighed less than 40 lbs. and was described as
“functioning at the mental level of a three-month-old baby.”
Robert Latimer was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Did Mr. Latimer do anything wrong? Wasn’t killing her an act
of mercy?
Wrongness of Discriminating Against Handicapped Argument
Handicapped people should be given the same respect and the
same rights as everyone else.
Tracy was killed because she was handicapped.
Therefore, killing her was wrong.
However
Tracy was not killed because of her cerebral palsy but because
of her pain and suffering and because there was no hope for her.

27. Slippery Slope Argument
If we accept any sort of mercy killing, we will slide down a
slippery slope, and in the end all life will be held cheap. Where
will we draw the line?
What about other disabled people, the elderly, the infirm, and
other ‘useless’ members of society?
Logical Fallacy
This kind of argument is all too easy to abuse.
If you are opposed to something but have no good arguments
against it, you can always make up a prediction about what it
might lead to; and no matter how implausible your prediction is,
no one can prove you wrong.
Minimum Conception of Morality
Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct
by reason—that is, to do what there are the best reasons for
doing—while giving equal weight to the interests of each
individual affected by one’s decision.
The Conscientious Moral Agent

28. Is concerned impartially with the interests of everyone affected
by what he or she does.
Carefully sifts facts and examines their implications.
Accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing them to
make sure they are justified.
Is willing to “listen to reason” even when it means revising
prior convictions.
Is willing to act on the results of this deliberation.
Homework - Next Week
Write a two page paper discussing the philosophies covered thus
far and how each fails to meet the Minimum Conception of
Morality by failing the test of impartiality to reason.