Subjectivity of Morality: Analysis of Arguments

Introduction

The question of whether morality is subjective or objective has been debated by philosophers for centuries. Those who argue that morality is subjective claim that moral truths differ between individuals and cultures, and are dependent on preferences rather than facts. In contrast, the view that morality is objective holds that moral truths exist independently of what anyone thinks or feels about them. This essay will examine the key arguments on both sides of this debate, and consider the role of culture in shaping morality as well as the limitations of subjective morality.

The Debate on Subjectivity of Morality

A major proponent of moral subjectivism was the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume. Hume argued that it is impossible to derive moral statements from factual claims, a view known as the is-ought problem. For example, no amount of factual statements about the world can lead to the moral conclusion that 'murder is wrong'. Hume claimed that morality originates in feelings, desires or preferences rather than reason. If morality is simply a matter of how we feel about things, then it must be subjective.

Building on Hume's ideas, 20th century emotivists argued that moral statements are neither true nor false - they are simply expressions of our emotions or attitudes. For example, saying 'murder is wrong' is equivalent to saying 'boo to murder!'. Emotivists conclude that morality cannot be objective if moral claims are neither true or false.

More recently, anthropologists have pointed to the vast diversity of moral values across different cultures. Practices like polygamy or female circumcision are deemed morally acceptable in some cultures but condemned in others. Cultural relativists argue this demonstrates that morality is culturally determined rather than objectively true for all peoples.

On the other side of the debate, moral objectivists maintain that there are objective moral truths that hold universally. Prominent theories of objective morality include divine command theory, which grounds morality in the decrees of a God. Secular objective theories argue moral facts exist independently of any being's opinions about them, even a divine being. For example, the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that moral truths are knowable through rational thought and need no grounding in religion or culture.

Objectivists may grant morality can differ between cultures, but argue that cultural practices still have an objective moral status. Practices like slavery or human sacrifice would still be wrong even if upheld by certain cultures. Objectivists concede moral knowledge may be difficult, but that does not mean morality itself is subjective.

One limitation of moral subjectivism is it makes resolving moral disagreements very difficult. If morals are merely matters of preference, how can we say a culture that permits slavery is morally inferior to one that condemns it? We could only criticize others on pragmatic grounds, by appealing to harms, not by claims of moral right or wrong. Subjectivism also struggles to account for moral progress - how can we get better at morality if it is just a matter of personal taste?

The Implications of Subjectivity of Morality

If morality is subjective, then there are no universal moral principles or truths that apply to all people at all times. Right and wrong would depend on the individual and their personal feelings and preferences, rather than facts external to them. This raises significant challenges for determining moral value and has profound implications both for individuals and society.

Without objective moral standards, individuals must determine right and wrong entirely for themselves based on their own thoughts and emotions. Different people may come to drastically different conclusions about the morality of the same action based on their personal perspectives. There is no way to adjudicate between competing moral claims grounded solely in individual feelings.

This can make resolving moral disagreements very difficult in a subjectivist framework. If morals are determined by personal preferences, we have little grounds to criticize the values of other individuals or cultures. For example, a culture that permits practices like polygamy may not be objectively 'wrong' from a subjectivist viewpoint, even if we personally disagree with their values.

Subjective morality also raises challenges for moral progress in societies. If morals are simply matters of taste, it is unclear how societies can improve morally over time. Slavery, for instance, would not have been 'wrong' in subjectivist terms 500 years ago if the prevailing individual preferences accepted it. We lose a standard by which to assess moral progress.

Furthermore, the lack of shared moral values under subjectivism makes it difficult to maintain social order and cooperation. If individuals in a society have radically different and conflicting moral codes, it becomes hard to establish shared rules, traditions or institutions. Subjectivism taken to the extreme could lead to moral chaos.

However, subjectivism does allow moral flexibility and pluralism. It recognizes that in a diverse society, different cultural or religious groups may have their own moral perspectives that we should tolerate. Accepting some moral subjectivity may therefore enable social harmony between groups with differing values.

The Implications of Objectivity of Morality

If morality is objective, then there are universal moral truths and principles that apply to all people, regardless of personal feelings or cultural practices. This provides a standard for right and wrong, but also raises challenges in applying ostensibly universal morals across different contexts.

Objectivism holds that moral statements like 'murder is wrong' describe objective facts, not just preferences. These moral facts exist independently of any person's opinions of them. Objective morality is grounded in rational thought, human nature, or a divine source, not individual emotions or social customs.

Having fixed moral laws enables clear judgments of right and wrong. We can condemn practices like slavery as objectively immoral, even if they were accepted in certain cultural contexts. Objective morality also allows moral progress - societies can improve morally by better aligning customs and laws with objective moral facts.

However, objective morality struggles to account for the diversity of moral perspectives between cultures. Practices like polygamy might be deemed morally wrong from one culture's objective viewpoint but morally permissible from another's. This raises difficult questions about whose objective moral framework takes precedence in a multicultural society.

There are also concerns that belief in universal moral laws leads to moral absolutism and intolerance. Those who are deeply convinced of their objective moral truth may seek to impose it on others who do not share their moral framework. This could undermine individual liberty and pluralism.

Objective morality may also lead us to oversimplify complex moral dilemmas. Strictly following universal moral rules could produce outcomes that violate our deeper moral intuitions in certain situations where the right course of action is less clear. Some flexibility and nuance may be needed when applying objective morals.

Overall, objective morality provides some clear advantages but also faces substantial challenges in practice. Pure objectivism that ignores moral nuance could be problematic. But incorporating some objective moral truths may help build ethical societies with shared values. A sophisticated balance between objective and subjective elements may produce the most desirable moral framework.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the subjectivity of morality has been debated by philosophers for centuries, with reasonable arguments on both sides. Key arguments for subjectivism include the diversity of morals across cultures, the apparent derivability of moral statements from facts, and the dependence of morality on personal feelings and attitudes.

In contrast, objectivists argue that some moral truths seem universal, and that practices like slavery would still be wrong even if accepted in certain cultures. Moral statements also do not seem to be mere expressions of emotion. Powerful cases have been made for forms of both moral subjectivism and objectivism.

This debate has profound implications for how we conceive of morality. Subjectivism struggles to resolve moral disagreements or make cross-cultural judgments. But objectivism faces difficulties in accounting for diversity of moral perspectives and risks absolutism. Pure versions of either view seem problematic.

Indeed, the most sophisticated perspective may involve a nuanced balance between subjective and objective elements in morality. Some degree of moral objectivity may be needed to condemn atrocities and provide shared values. But space for moral flexibility and feelings is also required to apply rules sensitively and allow diversity.

In the end, there may not be a single right answer to this age-old debate. But continuing to wrestle with questions about the sources and status of morality remains important. Doing so forces us to reflect more deeply on our moral convictions and may lead us to more considered moral reasoning and conduct.