Moral Subjectivism & Pluralism

INTRODUCTION

The ideas we'll talk about this time are similar to last's as moral relativism and moral subjectivism are similar ideas.

MORAL SUBJECTIVISM DEFINED

However, unlike moral relativism states that morality originates from a society, moral subjectivism can be defined as "the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to an individual standpoint and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over any other; thus, morality originates from the individual."

Thus, whatever you as an individual believe to be right or wrong, it is so.

Robert Anton Wilson, a self-described agnostic mystic, described this kind of thinking in this way: "'Is,' 'is,' 'is,' - the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know anything 'is'; I only know how it seems to me at the moment." In other words, he's asserting that whatever a person tends to believe or think at a given time is just as valid as what another believes or thinks in another moment.

EVIDENCE FOR MORAL SUBJECTIVISM

How would you defend this idea? During the discussion, people mentioned that such an idea can free someone from guilt and would be attractive because it allows them to do what they want.

Here's some other ideas that are used to support moral subjectivism. However, they can be refuted.

Moral Beliefs Are Based on Feelings. Therefore, since feelings are subjective, so is morality. Response: This is a false assertion. Yes, peoples feelings do impact their beliefs and vice versa. But that does not mean that feelings are the only standard by which morality can be measured.

People Disagree about Moral Issues. Thus, morality must be subjective. Response: So? Just because there's disagreement does not mean that there is no standard. It obviously doesn't mean that there IS a standard, but it's not a sufficient argument.

No One Can Prove Who Is Correct in a Moral Dispute. Since it can't be proved, you can't tell people that they must abide by... well... anything. Response: this idea already assumes that there is no standard. But if there is a standard, you are able to "prove" who is correct and incorrect in a moral dispute by referring to the standard.

PROBLEMS WITH MORAL SUBJECTIVISM

As for the problems with moral subjectivism, there are several.

Subjectivism Violates Logical Laws. As we discussed with moral relativism, if you consider the two claims "murder is moral" and "murder is immoral," logic would dictate that one is correct and one is false because they are opposites. However, subjectivism allows for both to be true if separate individuals hold each to be true for them. This flies in the face of logic and reasoning.

Believing Doesn't Make It So. Just because one believes in subjectivism doesn't mean it's correct. Nor is it true that you're correct if you are100% genuine in your belief about some moral issue.

"Moral Inquiry" and "Moral Improvement" Can't Exist. How can you learn what the "right thing to do is" or learn how to "improve" if there's no standard to refer to?

The Problem of the Real World. It's not hard to imagine the chaos that this world would be in if everyone decided to live as moral subjectivists. It doesn't hold up.

The Problem of God. If there is a God who's established laws to be obeyed, then moral subjectivism is automatically negated.

PLURALISM

I want to quickly connect subjectivism to the idea of pluralism. Pluralism is a much more common belief that's held by people compared to moral subjectivism.

Let's begin with a definition. Though there are many other practical ways to define Pluralism, for our purposes, we'll define it as "the idea of extending acceptance and even validity to a variety of worldviews."

In other words, moral subjectivism accepts multiple understandings of JUST morality. Pluralism accept multiple worldviews which includes morality, but also views of God, eternity, purpose, holy texts, etc. We all know people like this: people who think there are many ways to God, people who think there are many ways to go to heaven, people who think that many religions have elements of truth, and people who are accepting of almost everyone and all ideas.

COMBATING PLURALISM

How do we combat this idea? Here's a few points.

First, when it comes to understanding God, heaven, hell, sin, salvation, and all other wordlview questions, someone has to be right. Logic and truth demand that not everyone can be right. Only the correct are correct. So it's logically problematic to just accept everyone.

Second, consider this actual quote about someone describing an aspect of pluralism: "You're allowed to believe what you choose." To clarify, the context of this quote suggests that this individual sees validity in whatever belief is chosen. My question to the person would immediately be "Can I believe that you're wrong? Or can I believe that only my way is right?  Or can I believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation?" This assertion that the individual made opens the door to a plethora of logical errors.

Third, consider another actual quote. "There's more than one truth out there." Granted, there is not just a single truth that exists, but the connotation here is that multiple ideas on the same thing can all be correct. That's ridiculous! That's not how that works! Anyways.....

What can we say from Scripture about this? We don't have to go very far to find a convincing verse that relates. John 14:6 quotes Jesus to say "I am THE way and THE truth and THE life. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through me" (my emphasis). Jesus makes it very clear which, honestly, is a blessing.

CONCLUSION

In the end, we can conclude that moral relativism, moral subjectivism, and pluralism just aren't plausible. However, in a world that rejects the idea of God, a lifestyle and worldview of relativity is a very reasonable course of action. It's wrong, but it's a situationally sensible way to live.