Moral Judgments

What if Moral Judgments are Subjective Matters?

As we know, judgments about a subjective matter are statements of fact about how a person feels. If moral judgments are subject matters, then when a person makes a moral judgment, he is making a claim about his personal preferences or tastes. So, when he says, racism is wrong, he means I don’t like racism. Since this is a subjective matter, this claim is true simply because he feels that way. It is a fact that he doesn’t like racism.
As we know, when people make contradictory judgments about a subjective matter, they are not disagreeing -- each is stating a true fact about how he or she feels.

But, what happens when there is a need for people to agree on a particular judgment about a subjective matter. Suppose that Jack is too cold and Sheila is too hot and both want to adjust the room temperature to their comfort. The problem here is obvious, there is only one thermostat in the room. Jack wants to turn the thermostat higher and can only offer as justification the subjective truth that he feels cold. Sheila, similarly, wants to turn the thermostat lower with the subjective justification that she feels too hot. Jack and Sheila are both right and there is no outside standard (contextual or objective) that can be used to pick the correct judgment in this case. Either Jack will get his way or Sheila will get her way but not because either of their judgments corresponds to the real truth.  That is, Sheila will have to try to get Jack to agree to turn the thermostat lower and she might use all sorts of tactics of persuasion but one thing she can’t do is argue that her subjective perception of temperature is right and Jack’s is wrong.   

Now suppose a person says racism is wrong. If morality is a subjective matter, this person may intend that his moral judgment apply only to himself. He may really only mean that he dislikes racism in the same way that his saying vanilla ice cream is terrible only means that he dislikes vanilla. If morality is entirely subjective, then it is the case that moral disagreements never happen.

It could be the case that moral judgments are intended only as statements of fact about how people feel about moral issues. Jack says racism is wrong and Sheila says racism is good and Jack and Sheila both realize that they are not in disagreement. Jack agrees that Sheila likes racism and Sheila agrees that Jack dislikes it. Consider however, that people making moral judgments generally intend that these judgments apply not only to themselves but to others.

When Jack says racism is wrong, he probably intends (among other things) that other people not be racists. When Sheila says, racism is good she probably intends that other people act in racist ways. If Jack and Sheila are trying to influence the same group of people, it is impossible that they will both succeed. If moral judgments are subjective matters then Jack can only justify his position with the subjective claim that he dislikes racism and Sheila can only say that her position should be followed because she feels good about racism. Either Jack will get what he likes or Sheila will.  But, as with the fight over the thermostat, Jack and Sheila can’t argue that their position should be adopted because it is right or true, only that they feel good about it.  

What if Moral Judgments are Contextual Matters?

If moral judgments are contextual matters, then when a person makes a moral judgment, he is making a claim about what is normal or accepted according to the agreed upon standards of that context. So, when Jack says, racism is wrong, he means something like in our society it is normal to condemn racism. If asked to justify why such behavior is normal and accepted, Jack might say that non-racist behavior is a tradition passed down from the ancestors. Or maybe racism is abnormal because Jack’s society has agreed to follow the lead of a political or religious leader who opposes racism. It is also very likely that Jack won’t be able to offer any clear justification at all. Many things that are normal in a society don’t have easy explanations. Think about it, could you offer a justification for why Americans drive on the right side of the road instead of the left? In any case, if moral judgments are contextual matters, then when Jack says, racism is wrong, what he means is don’t be a racist and the reason is because it is not normal or accepted to do so in this context.

As we know, where contextual matters are concerned, there is standard that can be used to determine the truth. So, if morality is contextual, then a moral judgment is true if it matches up with what a majority of people in a particular context (culture) believe and accept as normal. When people make contradictory moral judgments, they should measure their claims against the standard of normality set by the relevant context. Let’s return to Sheila’s view that racism is morally good and Jack’s contradictory judgment that racism is morally wrong.

If morality is contextual, then we can determine whose judgment is correct by checking what the majority of people in the relevant context (culture) believe. If a majority of people in the culture believe that racist attitudes and behaviors are wrong, then Jack’s judgment is true and Sheila’s false.

Consider an example from outside the moral realm. Jack judges that it is appropriate (fashionable) to wear shorts, a tank top and flip-flops to a wedding and Sheila judges such dress is inappropriate. Whether such casual dress is appropriate or not is a contextual matter since the rules of fashion are a reflection of what the people in a given culture believe and accept is appropriate. If the majority of the people at the wedding approve of Jack’s informal attire then Jack’s judgment was correct – it was appropriate to wear it. There is probably no really good justification for why people in a given culture approve of certain sorts of clothing choices and disapprove of others. Nonetheless, societal norms do, in fact, define what is or is not fashionable.

Of course, as people’s beliefs about what looks good to wear change, so does fashion. In the not too distant past, most Americans believed it inappropriate for women to wear pants -- dresses were the accepted norm. Today, of course, things are different.

Generally, what is considered normal or accepted within a culture can change over time and this can affect the status of many contextual truths including moral truths (if morality is indeed contextual in nature).

In the context of the United States, the norms concerning racism have shifted dramatically over the past 100 years. A century ago, racist attitudes and behaviors were normal. So, in 1906 when Jack said, racism is good he meant that racist attitudes and actions are normal and expected.

We must also consider what happens when two contexts clash. As we’ve seen, what is normal or good in one context can be abnormal or bad in another. It is easy to say that the members of one context should simply tolerate and avoid making judgments about people in other contexts. There will probably not be a problem if a Japanese person chooses to bow to an American in greeting instead of shaking hands. While bowing is abnormal in the context of the United States, most Americans realize that bowing is normal in Japan. Similarly, there is no problem with people in England tolerating the American practice of driving on the right side of the road and Americans tolerate the English practice of driving on the left.

But, suggesting similar tolerance on matters of morality is much more problematic. The fact is that we live in a world where the boundaries between contexts (nations, societies, cultures, etc) are becoming blurry or even meaningless. As people from various cultures interact in ever more intimate ways (personally, politically, economically, etc) meaningful distinctions between their morals and our morals are fading.

What if Moral Judgments are Objective Matters?

If moral judgments are objective matters, then when a person makes a moral judgment, she is making a claim about what is true for everyone. So, when she says, racism is immoral, she means something like, racism is wrong everywhere and always, for everyone. 

While it might be the case that not everyone will acknowledge an objective truth, you will recall that we can say that any intellectually honest person should acknowledge an objective truth. The person might be ignorant, but once the justification for the objective truth is presented and understood, the person should recognize the truth of the matter and accept it. So, if two people make contradictory judgments about an objective matter, it is impossible that both judgments are correct. Each person should provide a proof, demonstration or argument to support their judgment and (if morality is objective in nature) the one truth should become clear.

As we’ve seen some objective truths can be illustrated by empirical means (evidence based on the 5-senses). The Earth is Spherical is an example of an objective truth that can be demonstrated empirically. We could take people into space and simply ask them to view the Earth. Or, we might begin traveling in one direction and continue until we return to where we started. Other sorts of objective truths can be illustrated by rational argument or proof. For instance, all bachelors are unmarried males is true in an objective sense based on the definitions of the terms in the sentence. The basic axioms of geometry are also objective truths that are rationally based.

Let’s consider objective truths about morality. Can we use empirical and/or rational means to justify moral judgments? This is an open question which ethicists are devoted to investigating. One thing to consider is that such truths might exist even if we have not discovered them yet. It is true that people have been trying to find and prove objective truths about morality for thousands of years and yet they remain elusive.

Take a moment to consider a critical point about objective truths. It is never enough to merely assert that something is true in an objective sense. Further, the fact that people believe something to be true is not evidence that this truth is objective in nature. Even if every person believes something is true, it may not be an objective truth. And, even if nobody believes something, this something could be true in an objective sense. Consider that even if all humans believed the Earth was flat, the objective truth that the Earth is roughly spherical would remain.

What Kind of Truths are Moral Judgments

Let’s recap a few important points. First, there is no easy way to determine whether morality is subjective, contextual or objective. Since the beginning of Western philosophy some 2500 years ago, there have been very smart people who have defended each of these views. It might be the case that some moral matters fit into each category. But, the same matter of morality can’t fit into more than one category at the same time. A particular moral matter is either subjective in nature, or contextual or objective.

Finally, if there is any hope of making progress in a moral argument, it is imperative that all parties agree on what kind of truth is being debated. A moral argument where one person thinks she is talking about a contextual matter and the other person thinks she is talking about an objective matter is doomed to fail.

Consider It

You have now considered what it would be like if morality is a subjective matter, if morality is a contextual matter or if morality is an objective matter. After this initial exploration, what kind of truth do you think really applies to morality and why?

Deciding What is Best

In the spring of 2003 the United States and its allies were planning the invasion of Iraq. You can imagine the most basic question at hand was something like, what is the best way to achieve victory? Is war strategy a subjective matter a contextual matter or an objective one?

It seems this is not a purely subjective matter since the mere fact that someone believes a particular strategy is the best does not mean it is the best. A strategy in war is not good because an advocate feels good about it. In some ways, this seems to be a contextual matter since determining the best strategy depends to a large extent on which criteria are used to define victory. Is victory the removal of Saddam from power in Iraq or is victory defined as a stable, democratic Iraq which is a friend to America? Certainly a strategy for success in one case might not be the best strategy for the other. This might also be an objective matter since it deals with basic facts such as the number and capabilities of armies, the accuracy of weapons systems, and other such physical realities. We might also think of this as an objective matter since if we could fight the war over-and-over again using different tactics each time, one set of tactics would turn out to be the best, objectively.

In a similar vein, consider a hiring committee trying to select the best candidate for a job. This seems not to be a purely subjective matter. Clearly there are job requirements that provide a context for who is and isn’t qualified. There are objective elements that must be considered; if the committee is hiring an airplane pilot, a blind candidate should probably not be hired. Again, if the committee could hire every available candidate and let them each try the job, the best of all candidates could be determined. Again, it seems to make sense to say that some candidates are better than others.

In these examples, there may or may not be one objective answer (truth) to be found, but it does seem to make sense to say that some answers are better than others. Some battle plans are better than others and some job candidates are better than others. But what process will lead us toward the best answer?

Arguing about Ethics

1.      If morality is purely subjective, then there are no such things as moral disagreements and so arguments about moral judgments are impossible.

2.      If morality is contextual, then there are three potential sorts of moral disagreements.

a.       If there is agreement on the relevant context, then the disagreement could be about what the standard is. Since morality is merely a reflection of what the majority of people in that culture accept as normal, this is the standard for judging moral claims. For instance, a majority of Americans support the death penalty and so the death penalty is (by definition) morally acceptable.

b.      If there is agreement on the relevant context and also on what the accepted standard is, there could still be disagreement about what the accepted standard should be. Perhaps someone understands that truth of the fact that a majority of Americans believe that the death penalty is morally acceptable but she thinks that people should believe that the death penalty is morally unacceptable. So, two people could agree about what the standard is, but disagree about what the moral standard should be; about what people should believe and why.

c.       If there is no agreement about the relevant context, then there is really no disagreement at all. Two people from two different cultures could make contradictory moral judgments and both be correct with their own contexts.

3.      If morality is objective, then the disagreement is about which moral judgment is really true. Two people with contradictory judgments on an objective matter will realize that they can’t both be correct and should each present their evidence (proof, demonstration, argument).

Note the two places where arguments are possible: 2b and 3. Consider 2b again -- if you think that people should have good reasons for their beliefs about morality then you will agree that moral judgments are things that should be supported with arguments. And, certainly in the case of 3, arguments are essential in identifying (proving) the objective truth.

Since this is not a logic class, we will not spend lots of time discussion formal rules of argumentation. Most basically, an argument consists of at least two claims where one is the conclusion and one is a premise. The conclusion is the claim being defended and the premise is the claim offered as proof or evidence. In order to argue effectively about moral judgments, we have to accept some basic ground rules.

1. We acknowledge that moral judgments should be more than mere beliefs. Instead, moral judgments should be justified with arguments and evidence.
2. We admit the possibility that our own moral judgments might not be the best and we know that the way to find out is to join in debate with others, to compare the reasons and justification for our judgments against the reasons and justifications of those who hold different moral views.
3. The moral judgments with the best justifications are preferred.
4. As with the examples of war planning and search committees, we might never know for sure which moral judgments are the best; we might never agree whose arguments are strongest or whose justifications the most sound.

One productive way to work toward good and effective arguments is to recognize and avoid common mistakes in arguments called fallacies. I suggest you take some time to review this great online resource which lists and discusses many common argumentative fallacies. The Nizork Fallacies Project (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/)

Effective Argument vs. Persuasive Argument

Suppose you are on a hiring committee for a management position at the company you work for. In debating which candidate is the most qualified for the job, one of the other committee members says, "I think Joey is the best candidate for the job. His wife died last year and he's raising his three young children on his own. He needs the money that this raise would bring. Let's choose Joey." This person is stating the judgment that Joey is the most qualified for the job. But are the reasons offered relevant? Does financial need or the fact that one's situation evokes pity in others make one qualified for a job? These are irrelevant considerations. Relevant ones might include: experience, education, letters of reference from past employers, evidence of honesty and a hard working character, and so on.

This is not to say that irrelevant considerations are never persuasive. The opposite is often true. But here, the fact that a reason is persuasive does not mean it is a good reason.

Identifying Assumptions and First Principles

Earlier we considered examples of planning the best strategy for war and picking the best candidate for a job. It is possible to say that some answers in these cases are better than others, even if we can’t say for sure if these matters are subjective, contextual or objective. However, one thing we must do before we can make much progress is to identify our most basic assumptions or first principles.

To determine which strategy for victory is best, we must first analyze our values. Suppose we agree that the most important value is to protect the lives of our own troops. This First Principle offers a standard on which to judge the merits of various strategies. Suppose the most important value is speed -- we want to achieve victory as fast as possible. A bit of consideration will illustrate that the best battle strategy based on one First Principle will very likely not be the best if we use the other one. Often we must deal with a number of important First Principles and you can see how this complicates an argument. We probably want to protect our own troops, achieve victory as fast as possible, and also minimize civilian casualties, spend as little money as possible, minimize damage to infrastructure, etc.

Where arguments about moral judgments are concerned, we should pay special attention to identifying our First Principles, those basic values we use as premises for our arguments. It is often the case that disagreements about morality arise merely because two people disagree about which First Principle is the most important.

Consider this potential and partial list of First Principles related to morality:

· Fairness is important.  Similar cases should be treated equally.

· Life is valuable [human life, life in general]

· It is wrong to use a person as merely a means to an end.

· Suffering and pain are bad.

· Happiness and pleasure are good.

· Autonomy and freedom are important.

· Individuals should promote the welfare of others; especially when the cost is minimal.

· Justice is important -- people should get what they deserve.

· Virtues such as loyalty and friendship are important.

What other important First Principles or values should be on this list? Can you see how the order of importance given to items on such a list could form the basis for moral disagreements?