phil assignment 3 (1)
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Calgary *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
249
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
Pages
7
Uploaded by MasterIceGazelle28
Morality is more a matter of taste than truth
The nature of morality has been a subject of philosophical inquiry for centuries, and one
of the key debates is whether moral values are objective or subjective. Perry (2000) describes the
concept of morality to be understood as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon encompassing
a range of norms, values, virtues and duties for individuals. Subjective morality is the idea that
moral values and principles are ultimately based on personal opinions and individual
preferences, rather than objective standards that exist independently of human experience. On the
other hand, objective morality indicates that moral standards and values exist independently of
individual beliefs, emotions, or cultural norms (Dorsey, 2017) This essay delves into the
arguments for morality as taste and truth, considering the role of cultural relativism and
intuitionism. Moreover, it explores the critiques of objective and subjective morality,
highlighting the difficulties in determining objective moral truths and the potential drawbacks of
subjective morality. Ultimately suggesting that morality does not have a black-and-white answer,
and a more nuanced and integrated approach combining subjectivity and objectivity better
recognises the complexity of the moral experience (Zimmerman, 2006).
The importance of moral subjectivity has been supported by several philosophers and
theorists, including Douglas Adams (2018) who highlighted the importance of exploring the
impact that taste and cultural context have in forming moral judgements. Moral values are
influenced by cultural, social, and personal factors that shape our individual experiences and
perspectives. Asserting that people can have different and even conflicting views on moral issues
and that there is no universal or objective standard that can judge them.
Another argument for this perspective is cultural relativism, stating that moral values are
determined by cultural norms and practices, and may vary from culture to culture (Wolff, 2020).
Rachels (2018) notes that moral values are not objective features of the world, but rather are
products of human subjectivity and cultural context. This subjectivity can be endorsed by
intuitionism, which suggests that moral judgments are based on individual emotional responses
to moral situations, rather than objective moral principles (LaFollette and Persson, 2013).
Individuals’ moral values are not fixed and unchanging, but rather can evolve based on personal
experiences, across different cultures and societies. As Richard Rorty (1998) argues, moral
progress is not a matter of discovering objective moral truths, but rather a matter of changing
attitudes and values over time. This view challenges the idea that there are objective moral
standards that hold across all cultures and societies. Saptontzis (2012) analyzed the implications
of subjective morality in many instances and found there are some challenges, but ultimately
determined it offers potential benefits in terms of flexibility and autonomy. This is because it
provides a flexible and adaptable approach to moral issues, which can lead to greater moral
autonomy as individuals are encouraged to develop their own values rather than relying on
external authority.
Proponents of moral objectivity argue that some actions are inherently right or wrong,
regardless of personal opinions or cultural norms (Sapontzis, 2012). In today's society, it is
widely accepted that murder, torture, and slavery are universally considered to be morally wrong,
regardless of cultural differences or individual experiences. This suggests that some moral values
are universally accepted, regardless of culture, and personal beliefs. It can be argued that moral
subjectivism undermines the notion of moral responsibility. Maintaining that morality is
objective, provides the ability to hold individuals accountable for their actions by having
universally set standards to judge right from wrong, providing a basis of responsibility and
accountability to one another.
Philosophers often support morality as a truth because it provides a framework to
evaluate and justify moral claims, allowing for moral progress (
Rescher, 2008)
. Without an
objective framework, there would be no method to determine what moral choice is better than
another, making it impossible to improve and make progress. It also allows for resolution of
moral disputes and provides a foundation for discussion and education. This argument would
deem moral discussion to be a meaningless exchange of subjective opinions, halting all progress.
We must ask ourselves if the ease of making a decision is worth discrediting the role of personal
experiences when discussing moral values? Some philosophers align with objectivity due to the
idea that moral judgements are grounded in humans' basic needs and interests (Lear, 1984). Lear
argues there are objective facts about what is good or bad for a human based on biological and
psychological makeup. While there is no denying that it is objectively good to have food and
shelter, this thinking will not be a foolproof approach to morality.
Critiques of both objective and subjective theories of morality have been thoroughly
explored in the field of philosophy, highlighting its complexities. Objectivists claim that there are
moral truths, independent of personal beliefs or opinions. However, the challenge lies in
determining what those objective moral truths are and how to discover them. The idea of
objective moral standards itself is a problematic concept, if they exist they would be inaccessible
and unknown to mankind (Sapontzis, 2012). If moral truth is determined by a group of
individuals, how do we determine that it is not a subjective standard molded by their personal
experiences? On the contrary, if morality is subjective how do we justify inherently wrong
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
actions like killing innocent people? Moral principles are discovered through subjective
emotional responses allowing individuals to take personal responsibility for moral actions and
beliefs. However, this view also has its drawbacks. If morality is solely based on individual
tastes, how can we distinguish between morally good and bad actions or assess moral progress
over time (Sapontzis, 2012)?
The subjectivity of moral values is apparent in the diverse cultural and individual
perspectives on moral issues, as well as the role of individual emotional responses in shaping
moral beliefs, indicating that moral values are not universal or objective (Allan, 2015). Moral
relativism challenges the idea of objective moral standards, as it suggests that there are no moral
truths that hold universally across all cultures and societies. This is seen in moral disagreements
between individuals and cultures, if earth's population relied on an objective set of moral
standards there would be little to no societal debate. For instance, opinion on abortion is strongly
argued on both pro-life and pro-choice, a universal objective standard would indicate support
primarily on one side. Moreover, the lack of objective moral standards is further indicated by
nihilism and subjectivism, arguing that there are no objective moral values or duties at all (Wolff,
2020). Nihilists hold that moral claims are simply expressions of subjective preference, while
subjectivists maintain that moral judgments are grounded solely in individual attitudes and
emotions. For both perspectives, the idea of objective moral truth is fundamentally a matter of
personal taste. What is considered morally right or wrong varies widely depending on the
cultural context or individual beliefs. This variability suggests that moral values are more a
matter of taste than objective truth.
It has been established that both taste and truth are backed by theory but to truly consider
what morality is, we need to consider hybrid methods. According to Zimmerman (2006), moral
obligations are grounded in objective moral facts, but they are also dependent on the moral
beliefs and attitudes of individuals. He suggests a hybrid theory can account for the diversity of
moral beliefs and practices across time and culture while providing a basis for moral criticism
and improvement. Schick(1998) acknowledges the ongoing debate between philosophers
regarding the nature of objective moral standards, yet most agree morality cannot be purely a
matter of taste. This reflects that certain moral truths are objective and universal, forming the
basis of ethical decision-making. This essay has identified subjective morality as being the most
agreeable, but it cannot stand on its own to explain all. It may not be important to question if
morality is objective or subjective, but instead to question how we should best explain why we
should accept moral claims (Dorsey, 2017). A focus on moral reasons may provide a more
promising approach to philosophy.
By acknowledging the diversity and complexity of moral beliefs, we can foster a more
empathetic and nuanced understanding of different perspectives and work towards a more just
and equitable society. It is through ongoing dialogue and critical reflection that we can continue
to refine our moral values and create a more compassionate world
References
Adams, D.C. (2018) “Morality as a Matter of Taste: The Fiction of Ronald Firbank,”
The
Cambridge Quarterly
[Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/camqtly/bfx040.
Allan, L., 2015. Is Morality Subjective.
https://www.rationalrealm.com/downloads/philosophy/IsMoralitySubjective.pdf
Dorsey, D. (2017) “Objective Morality, Subjective Morality, and the Explanatory Question,”
Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy
, 6(3), pp. 1–25. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v6i3.65.
LaFollette, H. and Persson, I. (2013)
The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory
. John Wiley &
Sons.
Lear, J., 1984. Moral objectivity. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 17, pp.135-170.
Perry, M.J. (2000) “What Is Morality Anyway,”
Villanova Law Review
, 45(1), p. 69. Available
at:
https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3069&context=vlr.
Rachels, S. (2018)
The Elements of Moral Philosophy
.
Rescher, N., 2008. Moral objectivity.
Social philosophy and policy
,
25
(1), pp.393-409.
Rorty, R. (1998)
Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers
. Cambridge University Press.
Sapontzis, S.F. (2012)
Subjective Morals
. University Press of America.
Schick, T. (1998) Is morality a matter of taste? Why professional ethicists think that morality is
not purely ‘subjective.’ Vol. 18. Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism, Inc.
Wolff, J. (2020)
An Introduction to Moral Philosophy: Second Edition
. W.W. Norton &
Company.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Zimmerman, M.A. (2006) “Is Moral Obligation Objective or Subjective?,”
Utilitas
, 18(4), pp.
329–361. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0953820806002159.