Cultural Relativism = What is right and wrong vary from culture to culture ; there is no culture-independent, objective morality.
Ethical Subjectivism =What is right and wrong vary from individual to individual ; there is no independent, objective morality.

David Hume (1711-1776)
Simple Subjectivism:
X is wrong =
I disapprove of X

Let us choose any inanimate object, such as an oak or elm; and let us suppose, that by the dropping of its seed, it produces a sapling below it, which springing up by degrees, at last overtops and destroys the parent tree: I ask, if in this instance there be wanting any relation, which is discoverable in parricide or ingratitude?
Is not the one tree the cause of the other's existence; and the latter the cause of the destruction of the former, in the same manner as when a child murders his parent?

Consider the following two cases, which are very similar:
1) A tree creates a sapling 2) A man has a son

Consider the following two cases, which are very similar:
1) The sapling grows 2) The son grows

Consider the following two cases, which are very similar:
1) The sapling kills the tree 2) The son kills the father

How do we feel about these two cases?
Why do we say that case (2) is wrong, but not case (1)?
1) The sapling kills the tree 2) The son kills the father

Hume’s Argument for Emotivism:
There is no important difference between the two cases considered objectively and factually. The difference is in us: we feel strongly about (2) but not about (1).
1) The sapling kills the tree 2) The son kills the father

Hume’s Treatise and Morality
But to choose an instance, still more resembling; I would fain ask any one, why incest in the human species is criminal, and why the very same action, and the same relations in animals have not the smallest moral turpitude and deformity?
If it be answered, that this action is innocent in animals, because they have not reason sufficient to discover its turpitude; but that man, being endowed with that faculty which ought to restrain him to his duty, the same action instantly becomes criminal to him; should this be said, I would reply, that this is evidently arguing in a circle .

Hume’s Treatise and Morality
But can there be any difficulty in proving, that vice and virtue are not matters of fact, whose existence we can infer by reason?
Take any action allowed to be vicious: Willful murder, for instance . Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or
real existence, which you call vice. In whichever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts.
There is no other matter of fact in the case.

Hume’s Treatise and Morality
The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action . Here is a matter of fact; but `tis the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object.

Hume’s Treatise and Morality
The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You never can find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action . Here is a matter of fact; but `tis the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in yourself, not in the object.
P1. If we examine a morally vicious action carefully, we will not find its viciousness – we will only find its causes and effects.
P2. The viciousness of the action lies in our judgment of it, not in the action itself.
C. Moral distinctions come from our emotions, but have no objective ground in the world (Emotivism).

Hume’s Treatise and Morality
So that when you pronounce any action or character to be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it. Vice and virtue, therefore, may be compared to sounds, colors, heat and cold, which, according to modern philosophy, are not qualities in objects, but perceptions in the mind: And this discovery in morals, like that other in physics, is to be regarded as a considerable advancement of the speculative sciences.

For example: “Throwing the bicycle to stop the robbery was good.”

Throwing the bicycle to stop the robbery was good.
When Hume says that throwing the bicycle to stop the robbery was good, this means that he has a positive emotional response to this action.

Throwing the bicycle to stop the robbery was good.
When Hume says that throwing the bicycle to stop the robbery was good, this means that he has a positive emotional response to this action.
So morality is completely subjective, and has no basis in objective reality.

Simple
Subjectivism:
X is wrong =
I disapprove of X
Rachels:
This simple form of subjectivism faces several problems….

Simple
Subjectivism:
X is wrong =
I disapprove of X
Rachels:
1) If it were true, then we could not explain real moral disagreement.

Simple
Subjectivism:
X is wrong =
I disapprove of X
Rachels:
2) If it were true, then we could never be wrong about ethics, which seems crazy.

Charles L. Stevenson (1908-1979)
Not all language can be true or false – there are commands, questions, attitudes, etc.

Charles L. Stevenson (1908-1979)
Emotivism:
Moral language is used to influence behavior and express attitudes.

Emotivism:
Moral language is used to influence behavior and express attitudes.
Rachels: This answers the first objection to Simple
Subjectivism: disagreement in attitudes is possible.

Emotivism:
Moral language is used to influence behavior and express attitudes.
Rachels: However, this view implies that our moral statements are never true, which seems crazy.

Emotivism:
Moral language is used to influence behavior and express attitudes.
Rachels: Also, this view implies that moral judgments need not be supported by reasons, which is false.

Rachels: We have found no way to argue that subjectivism about morality is true. We seem justified in concluding that it is false.

Homosexuality:
Homosexual people fall in love and desire sexually people of the same sex. They don’t choose to do this, it just happens, the same way it happens to heterosexuals.
Why do people think that homosexuality is wrong?

Homosexuality:
One reason people often offer for believing that homosexuality is morally wrong is that it is unnatural.
This has at least three interpretations:

Homosexuality:
A) Homosexuality is unnatural in the sense that most people are not homosexual.
Rachels: this is true, but most people are not left handed, tall, or immensely nice, either.

Homosexuality:
B) Homosexuality is unnatural in the sense that it involves using sexual organs in ways that do not involve their natural purpose
(procreation).
Rachels: this is true, but so does masturbation, oral sex, sex with contraception, and sex after pregnancy or menopause.

Homosexuality:
C) Homosexuality is unnatural in the sense that it is contrary to what people ought to be.
Rachels: this just assumes what is supposed to be proven, it begs the question by cheating.

Rachels: Homosexuality is not opposed to family values, homosexuals want to make more family possible, not less.
There is no evidence that homosexual partners are worse at raising kids than heterosexual ones.

But the Bible says it’s wrong:
Leviticus 18:22: “You may not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

But the Bible says it’s wrong:
Leviticus 18:22: “You may not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Rachels: but so is eating sheep’s fat, letting a woman into the sanctuary who has just given birth, and seeing your uncle naked.

Not only that, but adulterers and those who curse their parents should be put to death, a priest’s daughter who “plays the whore” should be burned alive, and it is
OK to purchase slaves from nearby nations.

Rachels: So we can provide strong moral reasons for saying that homosexuality is not wrong, even if not everyone agrees.
Morality is not a matter of subjective preference.