THE SIMPLEST VERSION of the theory in Ethics named Subjectivism states that when a person says that

something is morally good, this means that he approves of that thing, and nothing more. Philosophy
professor at University of Alabama at Birmingham James Rachels (1941-2003) simplified the theory this
way:

“X is morally acceptable”

“X is right”

“X is good”

“X ought to be done”

These all mean: “I (the speaker)approve of X.”

And similarly:

“X is morally unacceptable

“X is wrong”

“X is bad”

“X ought not to be done”

These all mean: “I (the speaker)disapprove of X.”

Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements are in
fact arbitrary because they do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or
false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an
attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone. Thus, for a statement to be
considered morally right merely means that it is met with approval by the person of interest. Another
way of looking at this is that judgments about human conduct are shaped by, and in many ways limited
to, perception.

An Ethical Subjectivist would argue that the statement "Stalin was evil" expresses a strong dislike for the
sorts of things that Stalin did, but it does not follow that it is true (or false) that Stalin was in fact evil.
Another person who disagrees with the statement on purely moral grounds (while in agreement with all
non-evaluative facts about Stalin) is not making an intellectual error, but simply has a different attitude.
It is compatible with Moral Absolutism, in that an individual can hold certain of his moral precepts to
apply regardless of circumstances, but it is also compatible with Moral Relativism in the sense that the
truth of moral claims is relative to the attitudes of individuals. Unlike many of the other variants of Moral
Anti-Realism, it is a cognitivist theory, in that it holds that ethical sentences, while subjective, are
nonetheless the kind of thing that can be true or false, depending on whose approval is being discussed.
It stands in contrast to Moral Realism (under which ethical statements are independent of personal
attitudes).

Ethical Subjectivism has the advantage of providing a simple, common-sense explanation of what
morality is. Even if ethical views often have the internal appearance of objectivity (it feels like we are
making, or attempting to make, an objective statement), that would not make them so: it would only
mean that people believed them to be fact-stating, due to the assertive nature of most ethical
statements. This is further complicated by the fact that ethical claims very often have some implied
factual implications (e.g. "Mary is a good person" is likely, although not necessarily, to be based on
certain facts about the good things Mary tends to do).

However, Ethical Subjectivism presents a problem in that it offers no way for the parties engaged in
ethical debate to resolve their disagreements, merely requiring each side to exercise tolerance by
acknowledging the equally factual truth of the perceptions asserted by opponents. This effectively skirts
the type of dilemmas that ethics seeks to resolve, namely deciding what is the right thing to do. Another
problem is that feelings and attitudes often change over time, as knowledge, experience and
circumstances change, which does not make a good base for ethical decisions.

Types of Subjectivism

Back to Top

There are several different variants which can be considered under the heading of Ethical Subjectivism:

Simple Subjectivism: the view (largely as described above) that ethical statements reflect sentiments,
personal preferences and feelings rather than objective facts.

Individualist Subjectivism: the view (originally put forward by Protagoras) that there are as many distinct
scales of good and evil as there are individuals in the world. It is effectively a form of Egoism, which
maintains that every human being ought to pursue what is in his or her self-interest exclusively.
Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism): the view that for a thing to be morally right is for it to be
approved of by society, leading to the conclusion that different things are right for people in different
societies and different periods in history.

Ideal Observer Theory: the view that what is right is determined by the attitudes that a hypothetical
ideal observer (a being who is perfectly rational, imaginative and informed) would have. Adam Smith and
David Hume espoused early versions of the Ideal Observer Theory, and Roderick Firth (1917 - 1987) is
responsible for a more sophisticated modern version.

Ethical Subjectivism holds that there are no objective moral properties and that ethical statements are in
fact arbitrary because they do not express immutable truths. Instead, moral statements are made true or
false by the attitudes and/or conventions of the observers, and any ethical sentence just implies an
attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone. Thus, for a statement to be
considered morally right merely means that it is met with approval by the person of interest. Another
way of looking at this is that judgments about human conduct are shaped by, and in many ways limited
to, perception.

An Ethical Subjectivist would argue that the statement "Stalin was evil" expresses a strong dislike for the
sorts of things that Stalin did, but it does not follow that it is true (or false) that Stalin was in fact evil.
Another person who disagrees with the statement on purely moral grounds (while in agreement with all
non-evaluative facts about Stalin) is not making an intellectual error, but simply has a different attitude.

It is compatible with Moral Absolutism, in that an individual can hold certain of his moral precepts to
apply regardless of circumstances, but it is also compatible with Moral Relativism in the sense that the
truth of moral claims is relative to the attitudes of individuals. Unlike many of the other variants of Moral
Anti-Realism, it is a cognitivist theory, in that it holds that ethical sentences, while subjective, are
nonetheless the kind of thing that can be true or false, depending on whose approval is being discussed.
It stands in contrast to Moral Realism (under which ethical statements are independent of personal
attitudes).

Ethical Subjectivism has the advantage of providing a simple, common-sense explanation of what
morality is. Even if ethical views often have the internal appearance of objectivity (it feels like we are
making, or attempting to make, an objective statement), that would not make them so: it would only
mean that people believed them to be fact-stating, due to the assertive nature of most ethical
statements. This is further complicated by the fact that ethical claims very often have some implied
factual implications (e.g. "Mary is a good person" is likely, although not necessarily, to be based on
certain facts about the good things Mary tends to do).
However, Ethical Subjectivism presents a problem in that it offers no way for the parties engaged in
ethical debate to resolve their disagreements, merely requiring each side to exercise tolerance by
acknowledging the equally factual truth of the perceptions asserted by opponents. This effectively skirts
the type of dilemmas that ethics seeks to resolve, namely deciding what is the right thing to do. Another
problem is that feelings and attitudes often change over time, as knowledge, experience and
circumstances change, which does not make a good base for ethical decisions.

Types of Subjectivism

Back to Top

There are several different variants which can be considered under the heading of Ethical Subjectivism:

Simple Subjectivism: the view (largely as described above) that ethical statements reflect sentiments,
personal preferences and feelings rather than objective facts.

Individualist Subjectivism: the view (originally put forward by Protagoras) that there are as many distinct
scales of good and evil as there are individuals in the world. It is effectively a form of Egoism, which
maintains that every human being ought to pursue what is in his or her self-interest exclusively.

Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism): the view that for a thing to be morally right is for it to be
approved of by society, leading to the conclusion that different things are right for people in different
societies and different periods in history.

Ideal Observer Theory: the view that what is right is determined by the attitudes that a hypothetical
ideal observer (a being who is perfectly rational, imaginative and informed) would have. Adam Smith and
David Hume espoused early versions of the Ideal Observer Theory, and Roderick Firth (1917 - 1987) is
responsible for a more sophisticated modern version.

Deontology

Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong. Deontology is often
associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant believed that ethical actions follow universal moral
laws, such as “Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat.”

Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and do their duty. This
approach tends to fit well with our natural intuition about what is or isn’t ethical.
Unlike consequentialism, which judges actions by their results, deontology doesn’t require weighing the
costs and benefits of a situation. This avoids subjectivity and uncertainty because you only have to follow
set rules.

Despite its strengths, rigidly following deontology can produce results that many people find
unacceptable. For example, suppose you’re a software engineer and learn that a nuclear missile is about
to launch that might start a war. You can hack the network and cancel the launch, but it’s against your
professional code of ethics to break into any software system without permission. And, it’s a form of
lying and cheating. Deontology advises not to violate this rule. However, in letting the missile launch,
thousands of people will die.

So, following the rules makes deontology easy to apply. But it also means disregarding the possible
consequences of our actions when determining what is right and what is wrong.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It is the quest to
understand and live a life of moral character.

This character-based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice. By
practicing being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an honorable and moral
character. According to Aristotle, by honing virtuous habits, people will likely make the right choice when
faced with ethical challenges.

To illustrate the difference among three key moral philosophies, ethicists Mark White and Robert Arp
refer to the film The Dark Knight where Batman has the opportunity to kill the Joker. Utilitarians, White
and Arp suggest, would endorse killing the Joker. By taking this one life, Batman could save multitudes.
Deontologists, on the other hand, would reject killing the Joker simply because it’s wrong to kill. But a
virtue ethicist “would highlight the character of the person who kills the Joker. Does Batman want to be
the kind of person who takes his enemies’ lives?” No, in fact, he doesn’t.

So, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be a virtuous human being. And, it gives us a
guide for living life without giving us specific rules for resolving ethical dilemmas.
Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It’s a version of
morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”

Moral relativism can be understood in several ways.

Descriptive moral relativism, also known as cultural relativism, says that moral standards are culturally
defined, which is generally true. Indeed, there may be a few values that seem nearly universal, such as
honesty and respect, but many differences appear across cultures when people evaluate moral
standards around the world.

Meta-ethical moral relativism states that there are no objective grounds for preferring the moral values
of one culture over another. Societies make their moral choices based on their unique beliefs, customs,
and practices. And, in fact, people tend to believe that the “right” moral values are the values that exist
in their own culture.

Normative moral relativism is the idea that all societies should accept each other’s differing moral
values, given that there are no universal moral principles. Most philosophers disagree however. For
example, just because bribery is okay in some cultures doesn’t mean that other cultures cannot rightfully
condemn it.

Moral relativism is on the opposite end of the continuum from moral absolutism, which says that there is
always one right answer to any ethical question. Indeed, those who adhere to moral relativism would
say, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”