I Am A Moral Naturalist, Not A Subjectivist

In a long comment on my post from this morning, George raised the question of usage of “subjectivism” beyond my own interpretation of the word.  Let’s look to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which should be as neutral an adjudicating source as the English-speaking philosophy world has.  I selected this source for its independent, encyclopedia character rather than just picking a philosopher who happens to use the term in a way I want.

In the very good article distinguishing Moral Subjectivism and Moral Relativism, Richard Joyce makes crucial distinctions:

Relativism holds that moral claims contain an essential indexical element, such that the truth of any such claim requires relativization to some individual or group. According to such a view, it is possible that when John asserts “Stealing is wrong” he is saying something true, but that when Jenny asserts “Stealing is wrong” she is saying something false. An individualistic relativism sees the vital difference as lying in the persons making the utterance; a cultural relativism sees the difference as stemming from the respective cultures that the speakers inhabit. (There are more complicated possibilities. Gilbert Harman, for example, would relativize the utterance to a context shared by both speaker and audience (Harman 1975; Harman and Thomson 1996).) In either case, it may be that what determines the difference in the two contexts is something “mind-dependent”—in which case it would be subjectivist relativism—but it need not be. Perhaps what determines the relevant difference is an entirely mind-independent affair, making for an objectivist relativism. (Consider: Tallness is a relative notion—John is a tall man but a short pro basketball player—but it is not the case that “thinking makes it so.”) Conversely, the subjectivist need not be a relativist. Suppose the moral facts depend on the attitudes or opinions of a particular group or individual (e.g., “X is good” means “Caesar approves of X,” or “The Supreme Court rules in favor of X” or “God commands X,” etc.), and thus moral truth is an entirely mind-dependent affair. Since, in this case, all speakers’ moral utterances are made true or false by the same mental activity, then this is not strictly speaking a version of relativism, but is, rather, a relation-designating account of moral terms (see Stevenson 1963: 74 for this distinction). In a relation-designating account of moral goodness (say, Roderick Firth’s ideal observer theory, to be discussed in section 5 of the main entry) it is not possible that when John asserts “Stealing is wrong” he is saying something true but that when Jenny asserts “Stealing is wrong” she is saying something false. The mind-dependence relation embodied in a subjectivist theory may give rise to a relation-designating account of moral truth rather than a relativistic account.

In short, the subjectivism vs. objectivism and the relativism vs. absolutism polarities are orthogonal to each other, and it is the former pair that matters when it comes to characterizing anti-realism.

There are two kinds of subjectivism indicated here.  There is subjectivist relativism which allows that each individual creates a good or bad for him or herself by virtue of his or her feeling that things are good or that they are bad.  The goodness or the badness is dependent solely on the individual’s mind.

This is the kind of subjectivism that would allow the Peter’s proposed pedophile to be vindicated.  Good and bad are completely relative to each subject, so what the pedophile feels preference for is good to the pedophile and there is no objectively dissuading the pedophile from calling his pedophilia good.

The best one can do is, say, shame him or make him empathize with the plight of abused children so he feels differently.  But we can make no true, objective judgments that the pedophile is wrong and that he truly should change his feelings.  We can only say we would personally desire that he feel differently but not that he is under any obligation to do so which he must rationally recognize.

This is the kind of subjectivism that hitches goodness and badness to the (potentially) idiosyncratic preferences of subjects, and it is what I want far clearer statements of disassociation from from Jason and George.  And Jason’s emotivist-like discussion of “disliking” pedophilia—rather than condemning it explicitly on objective grounds—has not yet convinced me that his views rule out subjectivist relativist dimensions.

Now the non-relativistic form of subjectivism offered is also mind-dependent but involves designated authorities who supposedly have the power to make things good or bad by their judgment.  These are forms of voluntarism according to which someone’s will makes for what is moral.

So, if a mother tells the kids there is no playing baseball in the house, then her will makes it wrong.  And the reason it is wrong is not because there is anything objectively wrong with playing baseball in the house but because she’s the mom and she says so.  If the kids were to have a dispute about whether baseball playing in the house was okay it would be objectively settleable by appeal to Mom’s decree.

And similarly, divine command theory would say that there is no objective fact about goodness or badness independent of God’s mind but that God’s subjective declarations make  things good or bad by fiat.  And similarly rulings made by a Supreme Court or a legislature would be binding on others.

In each of these cases, the moral justification would be that a particular mind willed or declared that something be good or be bad.  This means that the goodness or badness comes from the fiat of a particualr subject.  It is not relative if for some reason this mind has a true authority to create goodness and badness.

Now, maybe George and Jason truly think this is true.  Maybe they think that if the Zeitgeist of a particular people tells them that something is good or that it is bad that those people are bound to obey that collective judgment about morality.  Or maybe they think the subjective ruler is not the culture but some more specific creator of good and bad within the culture.

But George and Jason keep insisting their position is essentially the same as mine but I consciously and rather vehemently reject the idea that subjective decrees make for moral goodness.  I grant of course the force of positive law rests on the wills of authorities—at least to the extent that they do not violate objective standards of morality and goodness and become egregiously unjust laws.

But I do not think that the truth about morality is determined by cultural Zeitgeists or by authority figures or by a divine sovereign.  I am a naturalist.  I think there are natural values and that specific moral codes derive their justification by reference to the ways that they help us fulfill those natural value priorities.  I do not think that changes in morality are justified simply by changes in authorites’ opinions by rather by objective changes in what practices will bring about the most value.

If George and Jason want to argue I am wrong on this point, then they are free to do so, but they should not accuse me of semantic quibbling but rather explain to me how minds thinking things are good or bad make them so.

Of course some specific things become good or bad based on the idiosyncrasies of our temperaments.  If I find one activity restful, it becomes good for helping me rest whereas if you find that same activity stressful, it becomes bad for helping you rest.  But even this is an objective relationship determining the respective goodness and badness.  Objectively it can be observed that this activity makes me restful and it makes you restless.  The goodness or badness of the activity for helping us rest is not determined by our mind’s simple imputation of “goodness” or “badness” independent of objective factors.

And, as I had argued earlier, there is no necessary connection between the changeability of true values and their being subjective.  If values change only because authorities designated with declaring what is valuable change their mind, then that is subjectivist change.  That happens with the Supreme Court but not with moral truth, as far as I can tell.  If, on the other hand, values rightly change only when what is objectively valuable changes, then that is objectivist change.

I am arguing that values can change with objective justification.  It is not merely an observable fact that the values of people and of culture’s do change but that we can always (at least in theory) assess whether or not they should have changed and how they should have changed or not.  I think we can say some ways morals change are bad and some are good and the mere fact they change is not itself proof they should.  They should only when they rightly improve our alignment with the world for our flourishing.

I am a naturalist, I think there are objective, natural values.  I am a contextualist in that I think the best ways to realize those values varies with real world conditions.  That’s my position.  If George and Jason agree with these views, they should not call themselves subjectivists.  If they disagree, then that’s fine, but they should not accuse me of semantic quibbling when I attack their subjectivism as our dispute is over one of the most substantive metaethical questions—whether values are mind-dependent or mind-independent.

Your Thoughts?

  • http://www.lousycanuck.ca Jason Thibeault

    Not to resurrect a dead horse to beat on it some more, but I do feel the need to clarify, and I was under many time constraints over the past week while travelling, so I really couldn’t properly attempt to defend my layman’s understanding of philosophy. This is not an attempt at arguing with you, for the record, only of explaining my position in such a way that we are not talking at cross purposes as much as we seem to have recently.

    I would agree that, given the definitions of terms you’ve given in this post, I am also a naturalist and a contextualist. However, I limit my understanding of “objective, natural values” to the context of human beings, insofar as morals do not exist outside the scope of humanity. Morals are a framework by which humans decide what action benefits themselves and their society most; and I strongly suspect we’ve created them because humans are natural classifiers — we will not simply accept any aspect of our humanity without first having “punched, stamped, filed, briefed, debriefed or numbered” it. We’ve evolved as social animals, who work better together than apart as a species, and therefore require rules that we enculturate in our offspring in order to keep individuals from damaging or otherwise breaking the cohesiveness of the societal unit. Our empathy as human beings pretty much ensures that we have to take others’ feelings into consideration; the fact that empathy can be removed by lobotomy indicates to me that morals are entirely brain-dependent.

    I make the caveat about it applying only to humans because I steadfastly deny that the existence of morality (such as it is, since it does not exist manifestly without humans) proves anything about a divine creator or “law-giver”, which is the general tactic of the presuppositional apologist. If my declaration that morals are subjective is anything, it is an inartful declaration that morals do not exist separately from humans, and are therefore contingent on them. It is also a declaration that one needs to make a specific objective moral frame the guideline for building one’s system of morals, and that societies’ laws are a zeitgeist-dependent approximation of them.

    At least in a functioning democracy. Some laws simply exist to ensure the ruling class remains the ruling class. Some laws exist as a sword of Damocles hanging over each citizen’s head, intended to serve the government in damning anyone at their discretion — much in the same way that every person on the planet is a sinner if the standard is the Bible, given how it was written to damn every person for at least one thing, and if not for anything endemic to humanity, then through “original sin”.

    Also, I believe the “dislike” construction was paralleling one of Peter’s assertions that atheists have no reason to believe pedophilia is “wrong” without a law-giver. If this isn’t the case, then obviously, emotivist language was not the best construction, and I am not the most polished at arguing philosophical or meta-ethical questions. I was using the layman’s understanding of “objective” — “unchanging, uniform under all circumstances” — and “subjective” as the opposite. I expressly deny the false dichotomy Peter presents, that morals either were given to you by God or they differ from person to person and therefore give cover to a pedophile. The fact that you have so many words for so many positions on a spectrum I didn’t even know was fleshed out by philosophers shows me that philosophy has a place in discussing man-made concepts like morality. I am a very practical soul: a naturalist (there is no supernatural) and monist (there is only one kind of “stuff”, matter), and a determinist (every molecule does exactly what it’s supposed to, and doesn’t break any laws of nature to do something uncaused), and barring any advances in the field of quantum physics, I strongly believe free will is an illusion — one I’m willing to suspend disbelief and enjoy.

    And by the way, I’m cross-posting this on my blog. Just because.

  • http://www.lousycanuck.ca Jason Thibeault

    (I was going somewhere with that last sentence of the second-to-last paragraph, I swear. To wit:)

    Because I strongly believe there is an objective truth to the universe, and science is the best way to find it, I generally find questions of subjectivity (by which in this case I mean anything to do with humans and their understanding of one another and of ethics or other man-made constructions) to be side-bars to the greater quest of discovering this universe. I prefer science to philosophy, but only because I find philosophical arguments to generally be an unending ouroboros of painful discussion about semantics. I don’t mean “semantical quibbling”, I mean “semantics”. As in, “meanings of words.” The “quibbling” part comes in when — and only when — one tries to make their position clear despite misusing a word, and the bulk of argument following involves the misuse of the word rather than the position they attempted to make clear.

    And if anything in this diatribe uses incorrect words, I welcome you to correct them, but not to assume that my use of them means my position is anything but what I’ve laid out. If you’re unsure, please do ask.

  • Daniel Fincke

    Thanks Jason, that’s both very clarifying in the necessary ways and an account of the issues I mostly agree with. The sense of “objective” you were thinking of “unchanging, uniform under all circumstances” would better be rendered by the words immutable (for the unchanging—which is why I introduced the word mutable for your view as a more apt contrast) and either universal or formal depending on what you mean by “uniform under all circumstances”.

    Also absolutist tends to cover both “unchanging and uniform” as a combination. There may be more features to a properly absolutist account though.

    I do not think I disagree that morality is a human-specific phenomenon either. I am open minded to some interpretations of some animal systems of norms being interpreted as “moralities” but your point about morality being essentially systems of norms and organization relative to certain kinds of beings who need and use those norms in order to have functioning community is, I think, basically right.

    That said, as I have been arguing in numerous posts the last few days which have not been directly related to our debate, I would not equate morality and values as you do since there are many non-moral values.

    There is a sticky question your remarks here raise though and it’s whether human beings without empathy should properly be considered under moral categories. If a serial killer has no empathy is he not subject to moral condemnation? Is it fair to even punish him?

    My own account says that moral values ultimately are justified and reducible to more fundamental values of flourishing and that specifically moral categories and judgments are just the ways we cash out and organize these needs and priorities and develop norms. While I recognize empathy is massively important (to the point of being outright indispensable) in this process of binding us together, I do not think it is the fundamental value consideration.

  • http://outofthegdwaye.wordpress.com George W.

    I disagree that morality is unique to humans other than the fact that we categorize, reason, and codify it. I think that morality is more “instinctual” than either of you make it out to be. Where humans differ is that they must square this instinct with a higher reasoning mind.

    I don’t see the same issue Dan does with my understanding of Jason’s moral construct. Dan needs to connect the dots a little more for clarity, so I can see where he gets that….

  • Daniel Fincke

    I’m not saying moralities are not rooted in very basic, universal features of the brain, even though these “universalities” require human societies to be developed, structured, and instantiated in specific terms.

    Being “unique to humans” is not the same as being “avoidable for humans”.

    And, again, I’m not sure it is unique to humans. There may be other comparable behaviors among other species that deserve to be called “moral” and there may be other structures of norms and punishments, etc. that may be describable as “moralities”—even if their content differs from typical human norms in radical ways.

    I do not have settled opinions on the possibility or actuality of animal morality.

  • John M

    I cannot agree with: “So, if a mother tells the kids there is no playing baseball in the house, then her will makes it wrong. And the reason it is wrong is not because there is anything objectively wrong with playing baseball in the house but because she’s the mom and she says so.”
    change baseball to table tennis (assume a suitable table exists) to imagine why. Baseball wrecks the house and it will cost time trouble and money to put right, resources that could be better used elsewhere. If mother says playing table tennis is off the things allowed list, she better have a real good reason, unlike the obvious reason for that other game.

    BTW Its a pity you used quite a few techie terms that need a good bit of study to be sure of understanding. I love it when you talk straight and simple:)