Day 3 - Subjectivism... or we're both right and Sally Struthers is too!

So let's review.  According to my instructor, any ethical system needs to have three things:

1. Rationality - otherwise it would be incoherent
2. Impartiality - principles need to apply across the board
3. Common principles - need common definitions at the outset

As a Christian I can see why the above three are true.  God's law is meant to be understood, His principles apply to all people, and His definitions are grounded in His character.  I haven't yet asked my teacher what gives him the authority to decide what ethical systems need, but the opportunity just hasn't come up yet.  I'd rather not try to bend the class discussion to my will (as much as I would LOVE to) because after all he is the teacher, not me.

Cultural relativism results when you abandon rule number three.  You can think of cultural relativism as there are high walls around each culture to protect it from other cultures, but those high walls are also a prison where all the people inside must obey the culture to be moral.

Chapter three of the book was called "Subjectivism in Ethics" where it seems to abandon rule number two.  What happens if ethical principles do not apply across the board?

Quite simply, subjectivism means that there are no moral facts.  If this is the case then this leads to some interesting results.

Simple Subjectivsm

Simple subjectivism means that all moral beliefs are just expressions of approval or disapproval.  Let's say that Bill says, "Lying is wrong".  If a moral belief is just an expression of approval or disapproval, then Bill's statement on lying only means, "I disapprove of lying."  Now Ted comes along and says, "Lying is okay."  Then all that Ted is really saying is, "I approve of lying."

One of the problems of simple subjectivism is that people can never disagree.  On the surface it seems as though they are disagreeing.  But here's where it gets weird.  Can Bill truthfully say, "I agree that Ted says lying is okay," and Ted can truthfully say, "I agree that Bill says lying is wrong".  Can you see that they are both agreeing with each other?  Both Bill and Ted are agreeing with what the other person is saying because what the other person thinks has no bearing on what Bill or Ted thinks.  Furthermore, there is no need for Bill or Ted to try to make the other agree because they are both really agreeing with each other!  Now if believe that Bill and Ted are really disagreeing with each other, then simple subjectivism is not for you (and I hope it's not).

The other problem with simple subjectivsm is that people can never be wrong about their moral statements.  When Bill said, "Lying is wrong" it does not matter at all if lying is REALLY wrong, all that matters to Bill is what he thinks and why should he go against what he thinks?  If he some day does go against what he thinks and changes his mind, well then that's fine, I guess.  Simple subjectivism is purely autobiographical in nature.

Emotivism

The other flavor of subjectivism is called emotivsm and is a bit more sophisticated.  When Bill says, "Lying is wrong," all he is really saying (or emoting) is "Lying - Yuck!"  When Ted says, "Lying is okay," all he is really saying is "Lying - Hooray!"  To an emotivist, all of morality is just about the feeling you get when you disapprove or approve of something.  Now these statements that Bill and Ted made are neither right nor wrong, but they are just expressing emotions.

This view also leads to some interesting problems.  With emotivism, you can try to convince someone else to your own point of view.  But your argument cannot be rational in nature (rule one above) because all moral statements are emotional.  So in order to persuade someone else you need to persuade them to share the same emotions as you do (where's Sally Stuthers when you need her?).

 

So emotivism allows for disagreement, but not about any facts.


So what does the Christian make of all of the above discussion?  Are morals just opinion?  Are they just emotions?  My teacher ended the class with this picture from the civil rights movement era:

Swell, eh?  Three students decided to have a sit-in at a Woolworth's lunch counter.  At first the crowd was taunting and jeering them, then they started dumping food on them, eventually started kicking them, and the three protesters had to be escorted out of there by police.

Are the two sides above really just having differences in opinion?  Are the two sides just having a different emotions over the topic of equality?  When my teacher was talking about this picture it he even got a little choked up.  I will admit, it is an extremely powerful picture.

But why? If morality is not based on a culture, opinion, or emotions what is there left for it to be based on?  How about God?  It is the one thing that non-believers dare not admit because then they must realize that their fallen nature condemns them before God's perfect nature.  They will go out of their way, write volumes upon volumes of books, speak to as many people as possible to convince them that they're right, but their anti-God theories can never be right because they go against the law that their Creator has put in their hearts.  Their theories will always be full of holes, logical inconsistencies, and just go against the simple fact that there ARE moral facts.

So why is the above picture so powerful?  I don't want to say that the above actions are just 'wrong' because that term has been so overused that it has become generic.  How about despicable?  Morally repulsive?  Sickening? Atrocious?  Sinful?  Ideas such as right/wrong, wonderful/atrocious can only make sense when viewed in the light of God's word.