Kenneth Brooks

Dr.Kunecka

PHL 205

January 30, 2021

Short Paper 2

The notion of an “ideal observer” solves the issue of not being able to have debate when

it comes to relativism and subjectivism. Instead of just being able to state your beliefs as

preferences like “I disapprove of abortion” it allows a person to argue that an expert who is

knowledgeable on the topic would have this stance. It also allows there to be some sense of

progress in terms of morality since it serves as some sort of goal.

The issue I see with using an “ideal observer” is that it seems like you are getting closer

to arguing what god would think about this issue as opposed to what you personally think. If a

religious person started referencing god as an authority figure for every position, they held then

there would be no debate with them if everyone participating in the debate agreed to an ideal

observer.

Also, it does not seem possible for an individual to speak on behalf of an ideal observer if

they themselves are not an expert in the subject. At the very least this does not seem like

subjectivism. This would also assume that experts on a subject would all agree, and this is

obviously not true. Even in a hard science like physics, there is large disagreement about certain

fundamentals. If both people on either side of a position can point to an authority figure that
agrees with them then both are standing on equal grounds and again are reduced to stating their

stances as purely their opinion.

In what way would you be able to argue against an ideal observer? What if there is a

consensus on a subject by the experts that you happen to believe is morally incorrect? Does that

mean you should give up your stance and believe what the experts believe, or should you stick to

your stance? As an example, Germany in the 1940s was extremely anti-Semitic and there were

experts who believed in this as well. “Racial Science” became a popular topic in Germany to

show the difference between a Jew and a German. While many in the country at the time did

believe this, there were also those who thought this was morally reprehensible. Many “experts”

would have disagreed them, however. Film producers, doctors, scientist, etc., all would have said

that Jews were meant to be killed. The ideal observer stance assumes experts do not have their

own personal bias and cannot be lead astray like everyone else.

While an ideal observer solves some of the issues of relativism and subjectivism, it

introduces some problems itself that seem to negate the validity of the solution. It is not possible

to know what an expert would think if you were not an observer and it is extraordinarily rare that

experts in a field on agree on an answer. If this is the only fix for the flaws in relativism and

subjectivism then the two theories seem to be poor moral codes.