Block -2 Unit 1

SUBJECTIVISM OF MACKIE:

Quest:  Discuss Mackie’s Subjectivism.

Ans. Mackie is a proponent of the ontological subjectivism. He asserts that all objective values are subject-dependent.  He is against the semantic version of subjectivism. That’s why according to him, all moral statements are false.  Mackie holds the view that we merely assume that there is objectivity in our statements.  In fact, there is no objectivity is our statements.  He calls this type of arguments as arguments from queerness’.  For example, we assume consciousness as objectively real as table.

       He opines that every value must be action oriented.  Only that type of moral judgements are good, which has some reason for action. And every judgement should give only categorical reason.  But, because all moral statements are devoid of categorical reasons, they are all false.

       The difference between Mackie’s theory and simple subjectivism is this that it is more acceptable to people

than simple subjectivism. Because, it is the natural inclination of people in general to prefer objective value.  The theory given by simple subjectivism is not owned by common people.

       Regarding the problem of infallibility, Mackie holds the view that we are always mistaken in moral matters.  But this stand pointy of Mackie seems unreasonable.  The rational approach will be like this that we are sometimes right and sometimes wrong as well. Mackie’s standpoint will render intra-subjective and inter-subjective judgements impossible.  This will be other type of simple subjectivism.

       Further, following the simple subjectivists view will lead to the impossibility of disagreement between people because they cannot speak about same thing.  While, Mackie’s theory of error allows us to speak about the same thing and dissension is possible. Still the problem related to intra-subjective and inter-subjective remains there.

RATIONAL CONSTRUCTIVISM:

Quest: Write a short note on Rational Constructivism.

Ans. Rational Constructivism propounds the view that moral truths are constructed. They exist only because of being constructed.  To construct moral truths, rational agreement is necessary. Any morally good thing is decided by reason.  The crucial question is this that who is authorized person to decide something as morally good or rational-non-rational? This school of thought asserts that the authorized person is an ideal observer who does not exist.  He is an imaginative figure. This ideal observer is well informed and impartial.

       Comperative judgement is possible only through reason.  Whatever is decided after such comparison is rational one.  To compare Hitler with that of Martin Luther King and decide Martin to be right is a comparative judgement and decision is coherent.

REALISM

Quest: Write a short note on Realism in value ethics.

Ans:   According to the model of taste values are based on the desire of the subject. Whereas, according to the model of perception desires are based on the values.  The former is called subjectivism and the latter is called objectivism.  Realist thinkers are of view that values have objective reality apart from subjective one.  They don’t rely on subjects for their existence.

       Mackie is opposed to this view of realists. He holds the view that values cannot exist independent of the subject.  Only subject can create norms and evaluate the values. So, existence of subject is the necessary condition for the existence of values. The cognition of a value is possible only for a subject.  And, if it exists independently of the subject than a separate   faculty will be required to know it.

       According to David Hume, human being acts through two faculties i.e. desire and reason.  Desire is related to an ideal state which ought to be. But being solely subjective,

it cannot be judged as true or false. While, reason is the faculty which is related to the matters of fact.  Reason works through beliefs and facts.  Beliefs combined with facts can be judged as true or false.  Reason follows the norms of the society and is factual.  It works according to the demand of the situation.

       While faulty of desire is motivated by passion.  It signifies the world of imagination of the thinker.  So, based on perception, this type of statements cannot be judged true or false. It conforms the demand of the agent and follows his wish.  Here the world is monitored by the self.

       David Hume holds the view that value oriented moral convictions inspire us to act. This is called ‘moral internalism’. Just opposite to this are moral beliefs which doesn’t motivate us to act.  Moral convictions  are something different from beliefs but objectivists try to identify them. Therefore, moral objectivism is false.

       To establish logical relation between reason and desire and values and norms, is the main drawback of the objectivist thinkers. According to realists, it is impossible.  For example from the fact that there is corruption in the society, we cannot desire that the society must be corrupt.

INTUTIONAISM

Quest: Describe G E Moore’s position on non-naturalism (June-2013, 150 words)

Ans. According to intuitionists, happiness is a fundamental or intrinsic value which can be known only through intuition.  It cannot be defined by other values. “Good” being a non-natural property intuitionism is non-naturalism. ’Good’ being a non-natural term, cannot be defined in natural terms.  To define ‘good’ by natural terms is to fall prey to naturalistic fallacy.  Subjectivism constructivism, Cultural Relativism, Hedonism, Evolutionism, Perfectionism etc. all the theories have ‘naturalistic fallacy’. 

      

According to Moore, all natural concepts are temporal.  But ‘good’ is an ‘a-temporal’ concept.  So, it cannot be known in time.  The only method to know ‘good’ is intuition.  Since it doesn’t fall in the realm of time, it is non-natural.  It is not temporal but moral concept. To define it

in natural terms is to destroy its nature.  To deduce conclusion regarding values from factual arguments is to fall prey to naturalistic fallacy.  For example, according to Mill happiness is ‘good’. Here he deduces conclusion regarding value i.e. good from natural concept like, happiness, which is natural.  To identify natural concept with non-natural or moral one is to commit naturalistic fallacy.

Quest: Describe Intuitionism (June-2014, 250 words)

Ans. Intuitionism is the property of fully evolved mind. According to it intrinsic values like happiness can be known only through intuition.

       Since “good” is a ‘non-natural’ concept, the medium to know it is also non-natural intuition.  According to subjectivists good is ascertained by an individual whereas according to constructivists good is ascertained by rationalist thinkers.  While cultural relativists hold that ‘good’ is approved by consent of a group.  

       But Thomas Moore opines that good is non-natural

concept. So, it cannot be defined.  It is too simple to be defined. It can be defined only in analytical way.  He writes in the ‘Principia Ethica’, ‘My point is that ‘good’ is a simple notion just as ‘yellow’ is a simple notion; that, just as you cannot by any manner of means, explain to anyone who does not already  know it, what yellow is, so you cannot explain what good is.  Definition of the kind that I was asking for, definition which describe the real nature of the object or notion denoted by a word, and which do not merely tell us what the word is used to mean, are only possible when the object or notion in question  is something complex_ _ _ .  But yellow and good, we say, are not complex; they are notions of that simple kind, out of which definitions are composed and with which the power of further defining ceases.

                                            G E Moore, “Principia Ethica”, PP 7-8           

Two types of reduction:

 Reduction is of two types: Conceptual and metaphysical. Conceptual reduction is the significance of the concept. Whereas metaphysical reduction deals with the concept as such.  The reduction of ‘good’ can be conceptual one. Good does not contain the value in its very being. Metaphysical concepts cannot be described in analytical method; because the predicate is not contained in the subject.  But in conceptual reduction subject is already contained in the subject.

       That’s why good can be defined through analytical properties.

SIMPLE SUBJECTIVISM

Quest: Explain simple subjectivism (June-2014, 250 words)

Ans. According to simple subjectivism since moral statements are based on the perception of the individual therefore all moral statements are true if the person

approves it.  It asserts that the truth is relative to the individual.  So, it differs from person to person. Being dependent on the choice of the individual it is called ‘model of taste’. This simple subjectivism has two versions: Ontological and semantic version.  Ontological version of simple subjectivism asserts that objective value is dependent on the subject.  This version is also known as metaphysical version.  Its semantic version claims that we give meaning to every truth claim.  The truth of the statement depends on the individual.  Since truth is relative to the subject, therefore, no statement is false. It is called ‘infallibility’.

       Subjectivism cannot deal with the situation arising from conflict of moral values i.e. subjective and objective.  Further, since according to simple subjectivists all moral statements are true then there is every possibility of difference of opinion among the viewers. And in that condition of difference there will be no norm to decide, which one opinion is true. At the same time judgements are relative to time, as well. Whatever may be true today may not be true after some time.  Preferences change

 after some time.  Therefore, there must be some objective value.  Since, the same subject prefers two things at two occasions.  Then, there must be same objective value. This type of conflict is called intrapersonal conflict.

       Another type of conflict which can arise out of simple subjectivism, is interpersonal conflict.  In the condition of the differences of views of two persons, it will be difficult to decide which one is true till there is any objective norm.  If there is impossibility of dissent then there must be some objective value.

MORAL OBJECTIVISM

Quest: What is ‘moral objectivism? (June 2011, 150 words)

Ans:   To assert objective moral values is to be objective moralist.  Just opposite to this is the subjectivist’s standpoint, which supports the view of subjective values.

The standpoint of objectivists can be assessed from two points of view; from the point of view of model of perception and from the point of view of the model of the taste.  According to the model of perception something is desired by someone due to its value.  But just opposite is the standpoint of the proponents of the model of taste.  They say that, “It is desire that gives foundation to value”. The common factor between the two models is this that they both consider desire and value, as equivalent.  Naturally, everybody will prefer good to evil and things with positive values than negative ones.  The desired things have a positive value for the desirer.  And at the same time positive thing is desired by the person.  Something with negative quality, being desired is an inconsistent view.  So, we have a pro-attitude to something which has positive value for us.

       Therefore, objective value may be defined thus: A value is objective if it is more fundamental than the pro-attitudes in relation to it.  It must exist independent of our desires, preferences, emotions etc. If one accepts that a thing exists independently of our mind then he is an objective realist.   An objectivist accepts the model of

perception.  And the moral objectivist is realist in this sense.  Objectivism implies cognitivism as well which is of view that evaluative statements have values of truth.  Thus, it may be said that, ‘A value is objective not because it is independent of all attitudes in relation to it, but only pro-attitudes.

CULTURAL RELATIVISM

Quest: Explain Cultural relativism.  (Dec.2013,150 words,2014-250 words )

Ans.  In cultural relativism each group claims what they hold is true according to them.  Therefore all moral statements may be true or false. Cultural relativists,  on the one hand accept both ontological and semantic versions and say that all moral statements are true. On the other hand they accept the ontological version and reject the semantic version and say that all moral statements are false.

       Being subjectivist, cultural relativists also supports the differences in culture.  They say that due to the diversity of culture everybody should respect difference and become tolerant to others.  This standpoint of cultural relativists shows that they are trying to base their subjectivism on the ground to objectivism. Diversities of moral norms and practices are relative to space and time. Some of them are fundamental while others are derived one. Being relative these moral norms cannot be objective.  But these relative norms are due to some superficial beliefs.  And there are some undercurrent universal values which are the basis of all moral ground. Further, the differences of the values may be created by the difference of their execution.  For example: killing the parents in their 60’s is as per moral norms in African countries.  It is done for their well-being that if they will die healthy then they will be reborn healthy.  To show their love and respect to their parents and protect them from the diseases, they kill them.  It may be said that their intention is good though the act itself is bad. But for the people of other cultures, it is stupidity and malicious, as well.  The universal and objective characteristic   of this custom is to show love and respect to the parents, which

no culture may deny.  But on the level of the execution of this trend they differ.

       So, every norm is right for the persons belonging to a particular culture though there is some element of objective value in that norm.  Further, it may be so that some individual is member of various religious, ethnic and cultural groups and therefore there is every possibility of conflict arising out of differences.  So, as per his choice he may resolve the conflict.

Quest:  What are the ethical foundations? Discuss their importance in our life (June-2013, 500 words)

Ans.  Human inter-relatedness is ontological foundation of the moral obligation. Whereas, human person as a social being, is the norm for moral good.  The only moral precept

that is self-evident is that human person should be human. So, all other precepts are based on this fundamental precept i.e. a person should realize himself as human, and natural outcome of this precept.

       Human consciousness is in the transition period.  His self-awareness is increasing and he is more grounded in morality. By going through continuous self analysis of his own existence, he is trying to search himself.  His consciousness of himself grows with his growth. And since moral consciousness is a part of self-consciousness, he becomes more morally conscious with his growth. From this self-consciousness emerges the moral precepts, as he thinks what he should be.

       Moral precepts are the natural corollary of the fundamental moral precept that human person should be himself.  Or we can say that moral precepts are the offshoot of the first fundamental precept.  This relation of moral precepts to the fundamental precepts is not the logical one.  Though on the level of the ideas these are logically related yet this relation is a type of continuously evolving process of human existence. Radical

transformation has taken place from the primitive age of cannibalism to the contemporary age of universal declaration of human rights by United Nations General Assembly. 

       Though it is true that unreasonable customs spread ignorance of the moral precepts yet it is not the accurate description of the human being in general.  Human   historicity is the basis of this ignorance and variety of moral precepts. By the historical progressive development of his moral consciousness this ignorance and variety of morals can be defined. May be so that this development was not smooth and linear but screwed as well.The question, whether human person has gained his self and moral consciousness may be answered negatively because of some moral problems like abortion, women’s denigration etc.  Still women are not being treated as full human persons.  Whether fetuses should be considered as a human person is still being debated.  So many other problems like this indicate that still there is scope for progress and it will take its own time to complete this journey.         

EMOTIVISM OF AYER:

Quest:  Discuss the Emotivism of A J Ayer   (June 2013, 250 words)

Ans.  The emotivism of A J Ayer is based on the logical positivism and its scientific background.  The principle of the “verifiability criterion of meaning” was propounded by logical positivists to assure  that whether any claim is cognitively meaningful  or not.  To be cognitively meaningful any statement has to be either analytic or empirically verifiable.

       In any analytic statement there is logical connection and meaning of terms.  For example, ‘Red rose is red’, is true because of the understanding of terms and logical connections, not because of being empirically verifiable.  There must be some probability of observation for any empirically verifiable statement.  But statement like ‘God exists’ is neither analytic nor empirically verifiable. That’s why it can be neither declared true nor false.  It doesn’t have any cognitive meaning but only emotive meaning. 

 So, according to logical positivist it is merely a pseudo-concept. 

       According to Ayer, Moral judgments are not cognitively meaningful because they are neither analytic nor empirically verifiable.  He asserts that moral judgments are not analytic because of their definitions being naturalistic. 

Also they conflict with how we use language.  According to him the fallacy lies in defining emotive term by using non-emotive terms.  For example “good” = approved by the society.  But to say that some things approved by the society is not good is not contradictory.  So, moral judgements have not any cognitive meaning. They have only emotive meaning.  Being devoid of cognitive meaning there are no moral truths.

       Also, moral judgements are not empirically verifiable because of ‘good’ not being definable in empirical terms.

 Moral judgements are not analytic either because of not being true by definition.

       Being neither analytical nor empirical, moral judgements are neither true nor false.  They are merely emotive expressions. 

       The only difference between simple subjectivism and emotivism is that it doesn’t assert that all moral judgements are true.

       Critics raise several objections against emotivism. They say that the positivist’s assertion that every statement must be either analytical or empirically verifiable is itself neither analytical nor empirically verifiable . It is itself contradictory.

       Another objection raised by critics of positivism is that all moral statements cannot be translated into emotive statements.  Further, emotivism cannot differentiate between moral judgements and moral imperatives.  At the

same time moral judgements are not emotional but rotational decisions.  We judge everything rationally.

       Thus, the above analysis shows that instead of solving the problems created by simple subjectivists, emotivism falls prey to the same problems. Nobody can decide, on account of emotivism, that which statement is more correct than another.  Further, if any judgement is neither true nor false then it is useless to give decisions.

Logical Positivism:  The basis of Emotivism of A J Ayer is, Logical Positivism. Logical Positivists tried to apply scientific method in the realm of philosophy.   They gave the principle of the ‘verifiability criterion of meaning’ to test the claim. Any claim is cognitively meaningful if, either it is analytic or it is empirically verifiable.

       Logical connection and meaning of terms is the basis of analytic statements.  They cannot be empirically verified. For any empirically verifiable statement to become true, it is necessary that some possible observations make it probable.

Questions of the unit:

Q1. Define simple subjectivism.

Q2. What is meant by ontological version of subjectivism.

Q3. What are the intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts in Simple Subjectivism? Can it be resolved? Why?

Q4. What does Mackie object against the simple subjectivists? Or state theory of error.

Q5. Clarify the position that cultural relativists hold.

Q6. What is the fallacy of argument?

Q7.What is ‘Rational Constructivism’.

Q8. State Moore’s position on Non-Naturalism.

Q9. What is ‘Logical Positivism’.

Q10. Clarify the stand point of Realism.

Q11. What is the psychological challenge by David Hume?

Q12.What is Non-Natural? How can it be defined?

Q13.What is the argument from intuition?