Subjectivism and Moral Skepticism
Subjectivism and moral skepticism challenge the idea of universal moral truths. Subjectivism says morality comes down to personal opinions, while moral skepticism goes further and questions whether objective moral facts exist at all. Together, these views force us to reconsider what moral claims actually mean and whether they can be grounded in anything beyond individual perspective.
Understanding these positions matters because they shape how we approach moral disagreements, evaluate ethical theories, and think about whether moral progress is even possible.
Subjectivism: Moral Judgments as Personal Opinions
Subjectivism holds that moral judgments are based on personal opinions, feelings, or attitudes rather than objective facts or universal principles. When someone says "X is wrong," a subjectivist interprets that as "I disapprove of X." The moral claim is really a report about the speaker's own attitudes.
This means what counts as morally right or wrong varies from person to person, depending on their individual beliefs and values. Consider abortion: one person may judge it morally permissible based on values like bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom, while another may judge it morally wrong based on values like the sanctity of life. For the subjectivist, both judgments are equally "true" relative to each person's values.
Subjectivism directly challenges moral realism, the view that moral facts exist independently of what anyone believes or feels about them.
Moral Skepticism: Challenging the Existence of Objective Moral Truths
Moral skepticism is the view that there are no objective moral truths, or that moral knowledge is impossible to attain. It comes in several forms:
- Moral error theory holds that all moral claims are literally false because they refer to moral facts or properties that don't exist. A moral error theorist would say "murder is wrong" is false, not because murder is acceptable, but because there is no objective property of "wrongness" out in the world for the statement to latch onto. J.L. Mackie is the philosopher most associated with this view.
- Moral non-cognitivism holds that moral claims are neither true nor false. Instead, they express emotions, attitudes, or prescriptions. On this view, saying "stealing is wrong" isn't stating a fact; it's more like expressing disapproval ("Boo, stealing!") or issuing a command ("Don't steal!"). A.J. Ayer's emotivism and R.M. Hare's prescriptivism are classic versions of non-cognitivism.
Both forms challenge moral realism, but they differ from subjectivism in an important way. Subjectivism still allows for individual moral truths ("It's true for me that X is wrong"). Moral skepticism, especially error theory, denies that any moral claims are true at all.
Arguments for and Against
Arguments Supporting Subjectivism and Moral Skepticism
The diversity of moral beliefs across cultures and individuals suggests morality may be subjective rather than objective. Some cultures practice arranged marriages while others prioritize individual choice; some emphasize individual rights while others emphasize communal harmony. If morality were objective, you might expect more convergence.
The difficulty of resolving moral disagreements also lends support. Debates over euthanasia, animal rights, or wealth redistribution often come down to conflicting moral intuitions and deeply held emotions rather than facts anyone can point to. Unlike scientific disagreements, moral disagreements often seem intractable.
The lack of empirical evidence for moral facts strengthens the skeptical case. We can observe and measure physical properties like mass or temperature, but it's unclear how we could observe or measure moral properties like "rightness" or "goodness." If moral facts exist, what kind of facts are they, and how do we access them?
Arguments Against Subjectivism and Moral Skepticism
Widely shared moral intuitions push back against these views. Prohibitions against murder, theft, and incest appear across nearly all cultures. The near-universal condemnation of genocide and the widespread acceptance of human rights suggest some common moral ground that's hard to explain if morality is purely subjective.
The practical need for moral objectivity also counts against these positions. Societies need shared moral norms to guide behavior and resolve conflicts. Without some basis for saying certain actions are genuinely wrong, social cooperation becomes difficult to sustain.
The reality of moral experience provides another counterargument:
- Most people experience moral obligations, guilt, and indignation as real and binding, not as mere personal preferences
- Moral discourse and reasoning seem to presuppose that moral truths exist and that moral knowledge is possible, even if hard to pin down
- A society that fully abandoned moral objectivity might devolve into nihilism or "might makes right," undermining social cooperation, individual rights, and human flourishing
Impact on Ethical Decision-Making
Implications of Subjectivism
Subjectivism makes individuals the ultimate arbiters of moral truth. This leads to a form of moral relativism that can undermine the authority of moral norms. If morality is purely subjective, there may be no basis for criticizing someone who holds different moral beliefs, even if those beliefs support hate speech, discrimination, or cruelty.
Subjectivism can also produce moral paralysis in complex dilemmas. If you must choose between lying to protect someone's feelings and telling the truth to uphold honesty, a subjectivist has no objective criteria for deciding. Both honesty and benevolence are subjectively valued, and there's no higher standard to break the tie.
Implications of Moral Skepticism
Moral skepticism can lead to moral nihilism, the view that nothing is morally right or wrong. If all moral claims are false (error theory) or meaningless (non-cognitivism), then there may be no moral reasons to act one way rather than another. Decision-making becomes arbitrary or purely self-interested.
Moral skepticism can also undermine moral motivation and responsibility. If moral claims are just expressions of emotion, there's no compelling reason to follow moral norms when they conflict with self-interest. The "bindingness" of moral obligations disappears.
Potential Benefits for Moral Reasoning
Despite these challenges, subjectivism and moral skepticism can promote moral humility, open-mindedness, and tolerance. Recognizing the subjectivity of moral judgments may make you more receptive to alternative perspectives and less dogmatic about your own convictions. Moral skepticism can also encourage critical reflection on why you hold the moral beliefs you do, pushing toward more rigorous and self-aware moral reasoning.
Challenges to Universal Principles
Subjectivist and Skeptical Critiques of Moral Universalism
Subjectivism and moral skepticism challenge the idea that universal moral principles apply to all people at all times, regardless of personal opinions or cultural backgrounds. If morality is subjective or non-cognitive, there's no objective basis for asserting the universality of any particular moral principle.
This means frameworks like utilitarianism (maximizing overall well-being) or Kant's categorical imperative (acting only on universalizable maxims) might reflect particular cultural or philosophical commitments rather than objective moral truths. The diversity of moral beliefs and practices across cultures seems to reinforce this critique: some cultures prioritize individual autonomy, others communal duty; some enforce strict sexual codes, others are more permissive.
Universalist Responses
Universalists push back in several ways:
- Shared moral intuitions like the near-universal condemnation of genocide and widespread acceptance of human rights suggest common moral ground that transcends cultural boundaries
- Rational justification can ground universal principles. Kant argues the categorical imperative is a requirement of practical reason itself, while utilitarians argue that maximizing well-being follows rationally from the equal consideration of all sentient beings
- Diversity as varied application, not absence of principles. Some universalists acknowledge moral diversity but argue it reflects differences in how universal principles get applied rather than the absence of such principles. Different cultures may disagree about what counts as murder or what maximizes well-being, yet still share a commitment to the wrongness of murder and the importance of well-being
The Ongoing Debate
This debate between moral universalism and subjectivism/skepticism remains unresolved, with real implications for how ethics is practiced.
If subjectivism or skepticism is correct, moral philosophy may need to shift toward more descriptive and comparative work, examining the moral beliefs of different cultures, their psychological roots, and their social functions rather than seeking universal truths.
If universalism is correct, the task becomes identifying and justifying universal principles (human rights, the Golden Rule, Rawls's veil of ignorance) that can guide behavior across diverse contexts.
Regardless of which view holds up, the subjectivist and skeptical challenges highlight something valuable: even if you believe in universal moral principles, imposing them without understanding others' cultural and individual contexts, and without respectful dialogue, is itself a moral failure. These debates remind us that moral humility and open-mindedness matter in a world of genuinely diverse moral beliefs.