Blog 1 James Rachels “Subjectivism in Ethics”

By Stanislava Norets

Chapter 3 of James Rachels' “Subjectivism in Ethics” introduces the reader to moral

philosophy. Using the example of moral and social problems arising in modern society
(homosexuality and gay rights), the author talks about the main concepts of subjectivism.
According to Rachel, the essence of subjectivism is that moral statements are nothing, but the
expression of opinion and they are not statements about objective reality. Any statements can
be considered from any point of view, but we will never be able to accurately determine how
this or that statement is "wrong", because the very essence of "wrongness" comes from within
us people, based on opinion, faith, experience. The main argument in Rachels' essay is that
subjectivism has gone through some stages of development and change and has become more
objective. Next, the author shows us some stages of subjectivism:
1) Simple subjectivism - its simplest form ("This is right" = "I approve of this", "This
is not right" = "I do not approve of this"). However, Rachels cites the issue of mere
subjectivism as an example of the statements of a gay rights lawyer (Matt Foreman) and a
Republican congresswoman (Michele Bachmann). The theory of mere subjectivism implies
that there can be no real moral disagreement, only an exchange of opinions.

2) Emotivism - you can use the language in different ways, but this is an indicator of a
personal attitude to the statement. The author says that there are 3 ways to use language:
stating a fact, giving a command, or expressing emotions. According to the author, the
problem of emotivism lies in the fact that ethical disagreements are related to attitudes and
emotions, and not to real facts.

Toward the conclusion of the chapter, James Rachels says that there is no such thing
as evidence in ethics because ethical disagreements and claims cannot be scientifically or
proven in any way. For example, the author cites the statement that homosexuality is
“unnatural” but attempts to prove this statement leads to the fact that the very concept of
"unnaturalness" is a subjective opinion.
In conclusion, Rachels draws several conclusions that moral thinking and behavior is
only a matter of weighing causes and guiding them. The author also believes that by focusing
on relationships and feelings, ethical subjectivism is moving in the right direction.
After reading this essay, I was left under a strong impression, I was especially struck
by the fact that there is no direct and precise evidence in ethics. Indeed, based on my own
experience of growing up and changing the environment, I began to ask the question "how
wrong can such behavior be considered?". Now I will explain what I mean. I grew up in a
Christian environment where family values and moral values are paramount. From childhood,
my parents and my environment told me that a girl should not "stand out", as well as behave
"obscenely" (walk, not support family values, express her position). I was forbidden to walk
and even be friends with the opposite sex, as it was also considered "obscene" . Moral
differences occurred when I began to grow up and build my worldview. My father declared
that friendship with the opposite sex and short/revealing outfits were "lechery and
promiscuity", while my position was that clothing was a means of self-expression, and
friendship was a sharing of interests. At that time, my relationship with my father was badly
damaged due to constant conflicts and expressions of personal opinions. However, now
(especially after reading the writings of James Rachels) I understand that the conflict of the
situation occurred based on a misunderstanding of the causes of each other. Neither side had
a clear argument (ethical arguments are very subjective and give rise to disagreements), we
just expressed our positions emotionally, which led to the defeat of the conflict.
The issue of ethics is very interesting, and I would be happy to discuss other examples
of ethical conflicts based on religion or generation of people, because the limit of 500 words
is so small to express all the causes and consequences of the subjectivity of ethical
statements.

Questions:

1) If there are no proofs and confirmations of ethical statements as such, and ethical conflicts
are only opinions, then is it correct to say that even sharing a position is not an agreement
with this position? If we are talking about simple subjectivism, there is no concept of
disagreement, but then does the concept of agreement exist at all?
2) After reading it, it seemed to me that subjectivism is similar to tolerance. I mean that since
morality is a matter of opinion, and since each person has different opinions, then there is no
such thing as morality. Since morality itself is subjective as well as disagreement, then it
turns out that we only accept/tolerate the opinions of other people? If so, is it possible to say
that subjectivism is associated with nihilism?
3) In his text, Rachels gave 2 stages of subjectivism: simple and emotivism. However, both
directions give rise to problems and are not entirely satisfactory judgments. Is there then
another form of subjectivism that closes the gaps of mere subjectivism and emotivism?