Ethics Essay By Noa

Noa Heller

PHI 1700H

Essay 1- Simple Subjectivism vs Emotivism From the viewpoint of ethical subjectivism, nothing is objectively good or bad; moral beliefs are based solely on an individual’s feelings and opinions. This means that every individual has their own subjective truth, with these opinions influenced by factors like culture and life experience. Therefore, ethical subjectivism states that there is no right or wrong, that something can be both true and false at the same time. For example, imagine a scenario where two people are debating whether Trump’s policies were morally wrong, one a Trump supporter and the other against the President. To the Trump supporter, everything that Trump does or says is morally sound, while to the Anti-Trumper, those same actions are seen as morally wrong. Both the pro and anti Trump individuals believe their moral opinions to be true and both opinions are true, while also being false in the other’s eyes. Ethical subjectivism does not have a solution to an argument like this since there is no objective truth and neither can be deemed wrong nor right. They are simply expressing their attitude towards Trump, whether positive or negative. An argument against this would be that one person has to be right because many of Trump’s policies are wrong since they have caused harm, among other reasons. Simple subjectivists will say that these statements are merely opinions which every person in the world has a different version of. Some might take this further, into the natural world, and say that animals also do not have the same opinions about moral actions. Some species raise their young while others leave them to fend for themselves. There is even a species of geese that hatch their eggs on the tops of cliffs and the only way for their chicks to get down to reach food is to jump off the cliff and fall. While their behavior has evolved that way, other birds wait until their chicks can fly before kicking them out of the nest. Is these species of geese immoral? Are their actions incorrect? From the perspective of humans, many would say that it is morally wrong, but the laws of nature seem to be dictating otherwise. From a more linguistical approach, simple subjectivism narrows down the definition of subjectivism with language. When someone says something is morally good, they are simply saying that they approve of it. When someone says something is morally bad then they are saying that they disapprove of it. Using the previous scenario, the anti-Trumper would say “ I think Trump’s policies are morally wrong”. What they mean is “I disapprove of Trump’s policies”. This presents the ideas of ethical

Noa Heller

PHI 1700H

subjectivism in a very clear and logical way. Through the eyes of simple subjectivists, people’s morally opinionated comments are simple stating facts or conveying information that they see as true. This makes sense because everyone believes that their opinions are correct and their moral statements are simply descriptions of their beliefs which are neither right nor wrong. For example, there is no such thing as objective humor or something that is objectively humorous. Rather, humor is perceived by a subjective reaction to something that someone sees as funny. This can be shown because not everyone thinks the same jokes are funny. Two friends with inside jokes might claim “you had to be there to get the joke” when referring to something funny that happened in the past. To you, the lack of context gives you a subjective reaction to the joke and your friends have a different set of experiences and a different subjective reaction. Your response will most likely be along the lines of “that wasn’t funny” but it is solely a statement of your disapproval of the humor, and not a statement of facts. However, how would one go about solving a disagreement if you subscribe to the theory of simple subjectivism? Taking our Trump example again, the two individuals will each state their moral opinions, and each will be both correct and incorrect; but since they are both correct there is no argument to even be had. They will each maintain their truth and are entitled to such according to this theory. Their statements are only expressions of their approval or disapproval of Trump’s policies. This issue is one of the major pitfalls of simple subjectivism. Under this theory, there will be an eternal struggle between opinions without ever having a resolution as to which answer is correct. When trying to argue their opinions, the two individuals might try and refute the other’s opinion, but their statements only talk about their own beliefs. There is a clear disagreement, but according to simple subjectivism it is not a disagreement but a statement of moral opinion, since both are stating subjectively true facts. This contradiction is one of the major flaws of this school of thought. Emotivism is another sub-category of ethical subjectivism. It sees these same moral statements as expressions of that individual’s attitudes and beliefs, rather than a statement of facts. Emotivism describes statements such as “Trump is bad” as trying to influence others’ behaviors. When saying this, an individual is actually saying “Don’t support Trump” because their statement is a reflection of their attitude and its purpose is to try and convince others to not support Trump. Emotivism sees these statements as expressions of emotion just like statements like “damn!”, “lovely!”, or “queeeeen!”. These do not state facts. They are not telling someone that they are a queen, rather saying “queeeeen!”

Noa Heller

PHI 1700H

expresses your attitudes of admiration or pride towards their actions. Expressing attitudes as opposed to facts gives the advantage of not having to claim that there is a “true” and “false”. According to Stevenson, emotivism sees moral statements as either statements of belief or statements of attitude. Therefore, there are two types of disagreements: “disagreements in belief” and “disagreements in attitude”. Disagreements in belief involve opinions on what is good and what is bad. For example, one person might believe that Joe Biden fairly won the 2020 election while others will insist that the election was fraudulent. The two individuals are arguing over their beliefs; what one believes to be true, the other believes to be false. Disagreements in attitude often involve people’s desired results. For example, one person might want Biden to with the election while the other wants Trump to win. There is no true statement here at all, as it pertains only to people’s attitudes rather than the truth. In addition, they are not mutually exclusive so there can be a disagreement in belief but not in attitude, and vice versa. Nonetheless, in both disagreements there is no right or wrong, as subjectivism dictates, rather a different perspective to a situation. According to Stevenson, emotivism solely involves disagreements of attitude. In this case, moral conflicts exist and unlike simple subjectivism, there is no contradiction. The problem with emotivism is that it fails to acknowledge what simple subjectivism defines. Individuals often don’t see their moral statements as an expression of their attitude; they feel that their statements are trying to express a true fact. From the outside we can see how their opinions are subjective, but to the individual they see their opinions as facts, more correct than others who see things differently. Intention of a moral statement is equally important in interpreting the meaning and ignoring it is one of the major flaws of emotivism. The fundamental difference between these two approaches is the way they view moral statements. While simple subjectivists think moral claims of right and wrong are simple factual statements of which some view as true, emotivists will claim that these moral statements are portrayals of the individual’s attitudes aimed at convincing others of their trueness. However, moral theories are more than just language; they involve definitions of value. In that sense, simple subjectivism and emotivism both believe that nothing is inherently good or bad, meaning value is subjective and one belief does not have more value than another. Where they differ is their perspective on moral statements and their purpose. While simple subjectivism believes that a moral statement is an action of reporting one’s moral beliefs, emotivism believes that moral statements are only expressions of one’s moral beliefs (Schnall, 2004). The act of reporting a moral belief is in itself a judgement of right and

Noa Heller

PHI 1700H

wrong, but statements expressing moral beliefs can be seen as not stating the truthness or falseness of the matter and not expressing a judgement of right or wrong. Rather “it interprets ethical judgments as not stating anything that can be true or false” (Schnall, 2004). The theories behind subjectivism make sense because people’s opinions vary drastically from place to place. However, it also rejects the existence of a right and wrong which is what philosophy is trying to distinguish between. This can sound good in theory, in order to be inclusive to diversity, but when taken to actions it can become questionable. Should we say that the honor killings of women in Saudi Arabia is acceptable simply because they are morally correct to some cultures? Ignoring the existence of right and wrong can lead to acceptance of some terrible things. Criticizing subjectivism, one can argue that people’s values are not the basis for right and wrong in the world, rather moral truths are dictated by reason. If that is true, then moral truth is whichever arguments has the best, and therefore most fool-proof argument. Staying within the realms of subjectivism, one can still introduce this idea of reason. While there is no right or wrong, there can still be better or worse. Let’s say our Trump supporter could explain their beliefs fully and no question could prove them wrong, while our anti-Trumper was more correct but they had flaws in their logic and could be proven wrong. In this case, the Trump supporter would be more true since their reasoning was sounder. Overall, subjectivism and emotivism are very similar since they both involve the same underlying view of the status of moral statements: one’s moral statements are only a reflection of their own opinion so there is no right or wrong since everything is only an opinion. Simple subjectivism defines moral statements as declarations of subjective facts, while emotivism calls these same statements declarations of attitude with the intention of persuasion. In the connotation of the modern United States, an argument can be made that people should try and view politics from the perspective of emotivism. Perhaps it could bring our country closer together and introduce more empathy to the political climate.

References Schnall, I. M. (2004). Subjectivism and Emotivism. Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly, 53, 27– 44. https://www-jstor-org.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/stable/23352975? seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents