Rachels: Subjectivism in Ethics

Question 1

What is Rachel’s basic conception of moral subjectivism?

Answer 1

Moral opinions are not objective, but are merely feelings about things; we (generally) have negative feelings towards Nazis, but they are not good or bad bc morality is subjective.

Question 2

What is the Rachel’s first step in the development of moral subjectivism?

Answer 2

Simple subjectivism: when a person says X is good or bad, it simply means they approve/disapprove of X.

Question 3

What are two prominent objections to simple subjectivism?

Answer 3

1: It can’t account for fallibility; it implies that everyone is infallible (bc all it takes is expressing one’s honest feelings and that expression is automatically “true”) but everyone is sometimes wrong.
2: It can’t account for disagreement; according to SS, there is no disagreement bc people are only ever expressing their OWN feelings about something. But ppl do disagree.

Question 4

What is Rachel’s second step in the development of moral subjectivism?

Answer 4

Emotivism: Language is used in many ways; there can be true/false statements (I like Obama) and expressive statements that show a speakers attitudes (Hurrah for Obama!)- moral opinions express one’s attitude, and attempt to influence others.

Question 5

How does emotivism avoid the objections to SS?

Answer 5

1) Bc expressive statements are not true/false, it does not imply that ppl are infallible.
2) It is simply another type of disagreement; it isn’t our beliefs that are in conflict, but our desires.

Question 6

What problem does reason present for Emotivism?

Answer 6

Moral judgements must be supported by reason/facts, otherwise they are arbitrary. But supportive reasons for the emotivist is anything that influences someone towards your moral view, and just bc a fact is influential does not