Dialogue on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Objectivism
Contact: Dr. Jan Garrett
Last revision: March 15, 2010
Dramatis Personae
Theo, the defender of the (Scriptural) Divine Command Theory of Morality. The rules we should follow are just the rules that God endorses. (God's endorsement makes certain rules moral rules.) These rules are revealed in a particular Holy Book. For a definition of a more general version of Divine Command Theory, see Boss 2010, p, 16.
Theo believes that God wants wives to follow their husbands' lead and opposes premarital sex. He also thinks that God opposes slavery. Yet the important thing here is not content of the rules but what makes a rule one we ought to follow. A divine command theorist might hold that God endorses slavery or complete equality in marriage.
Susie the (ethical) subjectivist. What a person feels is right is indeed right, what a person feels is wrong is indeed wrong. (See quote from Rousseau on Boss 2010, p. 4)
Rob the (cultural) relativist. The norms of morality are created by particular societies and reflect culturally shared commitments in that society. And that's all they are: there are no norms of morality apart from these, nothing that is right and wrong apart from cultural agreement (pp. 5-6)
Olivia the ethical objectivist. There are basic rules of morality, standards or norms that define what is morally right, apart from personal feeling and the cultural norms of particular societies. This is true regardless of whether a person or his culture knows what those norms are.
Comment
Susie and Rob regard Theo as their main opponent, and vice versa.
But Olivia, who does not entirely agree with Theo, sees her position on the basis of morality to be directly opposed to the positions of Susie and Rob. She does not reveal her view all at once but only gradually.
The Conversation
I can't agree with Theo because he says that premarital sex is wrong and I feel that under some circumstances it is all right, for example, if you are committed to living together with somebody. Theo also believes women should be subservient to their husbands. I can't buy that. It feels oppressive. I feel women should be equal to their husbands. Personal feeling on moral questions is decisive. If a person feels that something's right, then it's right. If she feels that something is wrong, then it's wrong. Susie
I too can't agree with Theo, but my reason is different. I think society has moved on from traditional norms about family and sex. The culture has changed. Morality is basically a matter of social norms and cultural agreement. Anyone who has studied history knows that customs change. When a society's customs change, moral ideas change too. Rob
Theo
I of course think Susie and Rob are wrong. There are moral principles independent of individual human beings and their feelings. There are moral principles independent of societies and the cultures of societies as they exist at particular times.
Yes, women should follow the lead of their husbands because that's what God wants. God's will is the basis of morality: A rule defines what is right and what is wrong if the rule expresses God's will.
God teaches us that nobody should be the property of another person. That means that God opposes slavery. Slavery is wrong, regardless of your opinion or mine. I know it is because I know God's view on that matter.
Susie's view actually makes slavery right. Consider this. What is right, in her theory, is whatever a person feels is right. If Aristotle feels that some human beings-masters-should be able to own other human beings, that makes it right.
Rob's cultural relativist view too makes slavery right. If a particular society, like ancient Greek society or the American South prior to 1865 thinks slavery is right, then it is right.
Well, I feel that slavery is wrong, and since what I feel is wrong is indeed wrong, slavery is wrong. Susie
Theo is right about your subjectivist theory, Susie. Your theory implies that if Aristotle feels slavery is right, then it is right. But you're right about your theory too. Your theory implies that if you feel slavery is wrong, then it is wrong. Olivia
But then slavery would be both right and wrong? Susie
Olivia
You seem uncomfortable about that. You should be! Nobody wants to contradict herself. If a theory leads to contradictions when you apply it, that's a good reason to modify or drop the theory. You really ought to give up ethical subjectivism.
Here's another reason to give it up: If what you personally feel is right is right, then if you change your mind about something you felt was right, then it's suddenly wrong. If you change your mind again, then it's right again. Most people believe that right and wrong, whatever they are, are more permanent than that.
But I cannot accept Theo's theory. I'm not the only one who thinks that some of the rules Theo believes he finds in his Holy Book are wrong. Rob agrees with me about that. Susie
Rob
My relativist theory actually supports the idea that slavery is wrong. American society has moved on since 1865. Today the social as well as political consensus is that slavery is morally wrong. On my view, the cultural relativist view, that settles it, it is wrong.
Theo
But on your view, if the social consensus happened to shift again, slavery could become morally right. You wouldn't fight it. You'd say, oh well, it was wrong between 1865 and 2006 but now it has become right.
Olivia
I find it interesting that Theo, who Susie suggested endorses oppression, is now sounding like a militant abolitionist.
Slavery is probably not the only thing Theo is militant about. He's probably militant about keeping women subservient to their husbands. Rob
Theo
If God is for it, I must be for it. If God is against it, I must be against it. And on these matters I know what God wants.
Here's another criticism of Rob's relativism. Consider the situation in the 1850's in the United States. Most northern states regarded slavery as wrong and southern states regarded slavery as right. So in effect you had two societies, with different views on slavery. If Rob is right, slavery had to be right and wrong at the same time.
Well, answer me this. Wasn't slavery right for the South, in its eyes, and wrong for the North, in its eyes? Rob
Olivia
What you say may or may not be true, but it's not where the disagreement lies. Everybody admits that views about right and wrong vary to some extent from culture to culture. That's sociological relativism, a descriptive theory that we can confirm or disconfirm by doing opinion polls, reading newspapers of the time, looking at the laws.
You're not just a sociological relativist; you're also a cultural relativist, and that's what the debate is about. You think that the dominant opinion of a particular society decides moral standards, period. On this ground there's no way a whole particular society-or its dominant groups if they determine what public opinion is or what the laws are--could be wrong.
I don't understand you, Olivia. You disagree with me, and you disagree with Rob. You seem to agree with Theo. Yet you are holding something back. Susie
Olivia
I agree with Theo on two points:
(a) moral norms or principles are independent of the feelings of individual human beings
(b) moral norms are independent of the customs and laws of particular societies.Susie
Do you claim to know what they are because they come from God and you have found a book in which they are written down?
Olivia
I suspect that questions about God are more difficult than questions about morality. I do not claim to know with certainty that God exists or what God wishes us to do. Actually I don't think that Theo knows either.
Most people who believe in God, say that they believe or have faith in God, not that they know. Knowledge and belief are different. I know that 7x7=49 and that water turns to steam at 100 degrees centigrade. I believe I'm going to get at least a B in the logic class I'm taking now; I don't know that.
Susie
Yet you think that moral principles do not depend upon individual feelings or cultural agreement.
That's right. I think I know some of them, and have a rather good opinion about others (not all), but I don't say I know all of them. I think we can investigate, we can inquire. I think that we can grow in our moral knowledge. Olivia
Theo
I also think we can increase our moral knowledge. There are many moral rules. I know a lot of them already but not all. I am confident I can find the others by continuing my study of the Holy Book.
Olivia
Where Theo and I differ, then, is that I don't look for insight into the objective moral rules in just one place, such as a particular Holy Book. I'm willing to read the religious literature of other faiths than that of my parents. I am willing to study the moral arguments of people with whom I currently disagree and people who write on topics I haven't yet investigated closely. I'll study non-religious literature and art too, because novels, plays, poetry, and the visual arts are often good sources of moral insight.
I don't ignore feelings entirely. The fact that torture causes great pain to people being tortured is morally important. I don't ignore widely shared opinions in society, although majority opinion is sometimes wrong. I also don't ignore the evidence that I find in social studies and history about what institutions promote happiness and what do not.
I don't ignore what we learn about human nature from sciences like biology and psychology. We can learn what things fulfill people and what don't. That's relevant to what is right and wrong. Maybe not the only factor, but a big part of it.
From what I know about slavery, it increased human misery; it also promoted the happiness of a few at the expense of a great many. Those are two good reasons to say slavery was wrong, independent of the feeling of slaveholders and the laws of the slave states that favored slavery.
Rob
So you think there are objective moral rules-rules that are not simply what somebody feels or what some society, at the moment, supports-but you think it is important that we investigate beyond the appearances, trying to discover what the rules are. You're sort of like a scientist, who observes what she can perceive in the world around her, and tries to figure out what the natural laws are.
Olivia
That's a good analogy. We may not know what the objective rules of morality are-though frequently we have an approximate idea-but we can try to find out.
Remember, natural scientists don't do their work in isolation. They submit the results of their inquiry and experimentation to their fellow scientists for further discussion and testing. A scientific theory is accepted as valid only if it survives that sort of critical evaluation. Similarly, an ethical view should be subjected to similar tests, including the evidence and the challenges that may be proposed by other searchers for ethical truth.
I wonder if Theo's position isn't a bit like mine was. I said that what a person feels is right is right. Theo's position seems to be that what God feels is right is right. Susie
But God is the only person whose view really counts when it comes to determining moral rightness, while your subjectivist view says that what is right is determined by the feelings of any person at any time. Your view cannot avoid contradiction. Mine can. Theo
Olivia
But suppose God changes His mind; then on your view what was morally right can become wrong.
What is right could become wrong if God could change His mind, but He cannot change His mind because He is eternal and perfect, and perfect beings do not change. Theo
Olivia
I admit your view sounds consistent, Theo, but from my perspective it has some weak spots. I find it hard to make sense of an unchanging perfect mind.
I'm not surprised. Even though you're opposed to Susie's subjectivism and Rob's relativism, you still have a merely human perspective. Theo