Download the pdf or mp3 of this article.
It is widely believed today that our moral, cultural, and political alternatives are limited either to the ideas of the secular, relativistic left—or to those of the religious, absolutist right—or to some compromised mixture of the two. In other words, one’s ideas are supposedly either extremely “liberal” or extremely “conservative” or somewhere in between. Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, rejects this false alternative and offers an entirely different view of the world.
Objectivism is fully secular and absolutist; it is neither liberal nor conservative nor anywhere in between. It recognizes and upholds the secular (this-worldly) source and nature of moral principles and the secular moral foundations of a fully free, fully civilized society.
Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility. Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason. Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.
Rand described Objectivism as “a philosophy for living on earth.” The reason why it is a philosophy for living on Earth is that its every principle is derived from the observable facts of reality and the demonstrable requirements of human life and happiness.
As a philosophical system, Objectivism includes a view of the nature of reality, of man’s means of knowledge, of man’s nature and means of survival, of a proper morality, of a proper social system, and of the nature and value of art. Rand presented her philosophy in her many fiction and nonfiction books, such as The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Philosophy: Who Needs It, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and The Romantic Manifesto.
There is a great deal to Objectivism, much more than can be addressed in a book, let alone an essay. Moreover, neither I nor anyone else—other than Rand—can speak for Objectivism; the philosophy is precisely the body of philosophical principles set forth in her works. What follows, therefore, is an essentialized condensation of Objectivism as I see it. Any errors in the presentation are mine.
The Nature of Reality
Objectivism holds that reality is an absolute—that facts are facts, regardless of anyone’s hopes, fears, or desires. There is a world independent of our minds to which our thinking must correspond if our ideas are to be true and therefore of practical use in living our lives, pursuing our values, and protecting our rights.
Thus, Objectivism rejects the idea that reality is ultimately determined by personal opinion or social convention or “divine decree.” An individual’s ideas or beliefs do not make reality what it is, nor can they directly change anything about it; they either correspond to the facts of reality, or they do not. A person might think that the sun revolves around the earth (as some people do); that does not make it so.
Likewise, the accepted ideas or norms of a society or culture have no effect on the nature of reality; they either comport with the facts of reality, or they do not. Some cultures maintain that the earth is flat, that slavery is good, and that women are mentally inferior to men. Such beliefs do not alter the nature of what is; they contradict it; they are false.
As to the alleged existence of a “supernatural” being who creates and controls reality, no evidence or rational argument supports such a thing. Things in nature can be evidence only for the existence of things in nature (as, for instance, the fossil record is evidence for evolution); they cannot be evidence for the existence of things “outside of nature” or “above nature” or “beyond nature.” Nature is all there is; it is the sum of what exists; something “outside of nature” would be “outside of existence”—that is: nonexistent. Nature is not evidence for the existence of “super-nature.” There is no evidence for the existence of a “supernatural” being; there are only books, traditions, and people that say he exists. Evidence-free assertions, appeals to tradition, and appeals to authority are not rational arguments; they are textbook logical fallacies.
Neither individual beliefs nor widespread agreement nor a “supernatural” being’s will has any effect on the nature of the world. Reality is not created or controlled by consciousness. Reality just is. Existence just exists—and everything in it is something specific; everything is what it is and can act only in accordance with its identity. A rose is a rose; it can bloom; it cannot speak. A dictatorship is a dictatorship; it destroys life; it cannot promote life. Faith is faith (i.e., the acceptance of ideas in the absence of evidence); it leads to baseless beliefs; it cannot provide knowledge.
The practical significance of this point is that if people want to achieve their goals—such as gaining knowledge, amassing wealth, achieving happiness, establishing and maintaining liberty—they must recognize and embrace the nature of reality. Reality does not bend to our desires; we must conform to its laws. If we want knowledge, we must observe reality and think; if we want wealth, we must produce it; if we want to enjoy life, we must think, plan, and act accordingly; if we want liberty, we must identify and enact its cause. We cannot achieve such goals by wishing, voting, or praying.
Man’s Means of Knowledge
Objectivism holds that reason—the faculty that operates by way of observation and logic—is man’s means of knowledge. Man gains knowledge by perceiving reality with his five senses, forming concepts and principles on the basis of what he perceives, checking his ideas for consistency with reality, and correcting any contradictions he discovers in his thinking. This is how scientists discover facts in their various fields, from the principles of agriculture to the existence of atoms to the structure of DNA; it is how inventors and engineers design life-enhancing machines and devices, from automobiles to heart pumps to MP3 players; it is how businessmen establish ways to produce and deliver goods and services, from refrigerators to movies to wireless Internet access; it is how doctors diagnose and cure (or treat) diseases, from polio to sickle cell anemia to breast cancer; it is how children learn language, math, and manners; it is how philosophers discover the nature of the universe, the nature of man, and the proper principles of morality, politics, and esthetics. Reason is the means by which everyone learns about the world, himself, and his needs. Human knowledge—all human knowledge—is a product of perceptual observation and logical inference therefrom.
Thus, Objectivism rejects all forms of mysticism—the idea that knowledge can be acquired by non-sensory, nonrational means (such as faith, intuition, ESP, or any other form of “just knowing”). Objectivism equally rejects skepticism—the idea that knowledge is impossible, that it cannot be acquired by any means. Man clearly can acquire knowledge, has done so, and continues to do so; this is evident in the fact that he has accomplished all that he has.
In short, man has a means of knowledge; it is reason—and reason alone. If people want to know what is true or good or right, they must observe reality and use logic.
Man’s Nature and Means of Survival
Objectivism holds that man has free will—the ability to think or not to think, to use reason or not to use it, to go by facts or to go by feelings. A person does not have to use reason; the choice is his to make. Whatever an individual’s choice, however, the fact remains that man is the rational animal; reason is his only means of knowledge and therefore his basic means of survival. A person who refuses to use reason cannot live and flourish.
Man survives by observing reality, identifying the nature of things, discovering causal relationships, and making the logical connections necessary to produce the things he needs in order to live. Insofar as a person chooses to use reason, he is able to identify and pursue the things he needs for survival and happiness—things such as knowledge, food, shelter, medical care, art, recreation, romance, and freedom. Insofar as a person does not choose to use reason, he is unable to identify or pursue these requirements; he either dies or survives parasitically on the minds of those who do choose to use reason. In any case, reason is man’s basic means of survival, and free will—the choice to use reason or not—is the essence of his nature.
Thus, Objectivism rejects the notion that man’s nature is inherently corrupt (i.e., the idea of “original sin,” or the Hobbesian view of man as a brute), making his character necessarily depraved or barbaric. Objectivism also rejects the idea that man has no nature at all (i.e., the twisted, modern interpretation of man as a “blank slate”), making his character the consequence of social forces, such as upbringing or economic conditions. A person’s character is neither inherently bad nor the product of social forces; rather, it is a consequence of his choices. If an individual chooses to face facts, to think rationally, to be productive, and so on—and thereby develops a good character—that is his achievement. If an individual chooses not to face facts, not to think, not to produce, and so on—and thus develops a bad character—that is his fault.
Man has free will, and this fact is what gives rise to his need of morality: a code of values to guide his choices and actions.
A Proper Morality
Objectivism holds that the purpose of morality is to provide people with principled guidance for living and achieving happiness on earth. The proper standard of moral value is man’s life—meaning: the factual requirements of his life as set by his nature. And because human beings are individuals, each with his own body, his own mind, his own life, this standard pertains to human beings as individuals (not as cogs in a utilitarian collective). According to this principle, the good is that which supports or promotes an individual’s life; the evil is that which retards or destroys it. Being moral consists in taking the actions necessary to sustain and further one’s life—actions such as thinking rationally and planning for the future, being honest and having integrity, producing goods or services and trading them with others, judging people rationally (according to the relevant facts) and treating them accordingly, and so on. In a word, Objectivism holds that being moral consists in being rationally selfish or egoistic.
Rational egoism, the centerpiece of Objectivism, holds that each individual should act in his own best interest and is the proper beneficiary of his own moral action. This principle is the recognition of the fact that in order to live, people must take self-interested action and reap the benefits thereof. Human life requires egoism. (I use “rational egoism” and “egoism” interchangeably for reasons that will become clear.)
Thus, Objectivism rejects the morality of altruism—the idea that being moral consists in self-sacrificially serving others (whether the poor, the “common good,” “mother nature,” or “God”). Objectivism also rejects the idea that predation—the sacrificing of others for one’s own alleged benefit—can promote one’s life and happiness. And Objectivism rejects hedonism—the idea that being moral consists in acting in whatever manner gives one pleasure (or doing whatever one feels like doing).
Consider altruism first.
Altruism, contrary to widespread misconception, is not the morality of “being nice to people” or “doing things for others”; rather, it is the morality of self-sacrifice—that is, of serving others at the expense of one’s own life-serving values. The basic principle of altruism is that to be moral, an action must be selfless: Insofar as a person acts selflessly, he is moral; insofar as he does not, he is not. If he gives up a value for no gain whatsoever, he is being moral; if he gains something from an action, he is not being moral. For instance, if a volunteer social worker gives away his time and effort in exchange for nothing at all, he is being moral. If a software developer creates a product that people love and trades it with them for a profit, he is not being moral. So says altruism. Not so says egoism.
Egoism, which also is widely misconstrued, is not the morality of “stabbing people in the back to get what one wants” or “acting on one’s unfettered desires.” These are caricatures of egoism perpetrated by pushers of altruism who want people to believe that the only alternatives are: sacrifice yourself or sacrifice others. These, according to Objectivism, are not the only alternatives.
Egoism is the morality of non-sacrifice; it rejects all forms of human sacrifice—both self-sacrifice and the sacrifice of others—as a matter of principle. It holds that being moral consists in rationally pursuing one’s life-promoting values, neither sacrificing oneself to others nor sacrificing others to oneself.
Egoism upholds the principle of non-sacrifice—the idea that one should never surrender a greater value for the sake of a lesser value. This principle is the recognition of the fact that giving up the requirements of one’s life and happiness is inimical to one’s life and happiness. Of course, life requires that people regularly forgo lesser values for the sake of greater ones; however, these are gains, not sacrifices. A sacrifice is the giving up of something that is more important to one’s life and happiness for the sake of something that is less important to one’s life and happiness; thus, it results in a net loss.
To live, people must pursue values, not give them up. According to egoism, therefore, insofar as a person pursues his life-serving values and refuses to sacrifice them, he is acting morally; insofar as he does not, he is not acting morally. If he produces values and trades them with others for a profit (whether material or spiritual), he is thereby being moral; he is gaining values on which his life and happiness depend. If he gives his values away for no gain whatsoever (neither material nor spiritual), he is thereby being immoral; he is relinquishing values on which his life and happiness depend.
On this view, a software developer who trades his product with others for a profit is thereby being moral. A volunteer social worker who gives away his time and effort for nothing at all is thereby being immoral. Likewise, a parent who values his child’s education more than he values a new sports car, and who forgoes the car in order to pay for the education, is being moral; a parent who values the education more than the car, but forgoes paying for the education in order to purchase the car, is being immoral. Similarly, a soldier who fights for freedom on the grounds that life without liberty is not worth living (“Give me liberty, or give me death!”) is being moral; one who fights in obedience to an alleged “supernatural” being’s commands is not. And so forth.
There is a black-and-white difference between trading values for gains and giving up values for nothing. Egoism calls for the first; altruism calls for the second.
Egoism is based on and derived from the requirements of human life on earth; thus, people can practice it consistently and must do so—if they want to live and make the most of their lives. Altruism cannot be practiced consistently. A person who accepts the morality of altruism has to cheat on it just to stay alive; for instance, he must selfishly earn a paycheck so that he can buy food.
Given the many values on which human life and happiness depend—from material values, such as food, shelter, clothing, medical care, automobiles, and computers, to spiritual values, such as knowledge, self-esteem, art, friendship, romantic love, and liberty—people need a great deal of guidance in making choices and taking actions. They need moral principles that are conducive to the goal of living fully and happily. In answer to this need, egoism provides a whole system of integrated, noncontradictory principles, the sole purpose of which is to teach man how to live and enjoy himself. In answer to this same need, altruism says: Don’t be selfish; sacrifice your values; give up your needs. If people want to live and be happy, only one of these moralities will do.
Altruism is not good for one’s life. If accepted and practiced consistently, it leads to death. This is what Jesus did. If accepted and practiced inconsistently, it retards one’s life and leads to guilt. This is what most altruists do. An altruist might not die from his morality—so long as he cheats on it—but neither will he live fully. Insofar as a person acts against the requirements of his life and happiness, he will not make the most of his life; he will not achieve the kind of happiness possible to man.
Egoism is good for one’s life. If accepted and practiced consistently, it leads to a life of happiness. If accepted and practiced inconsistently—well, there is no reason to be inconsistent here. Why not live a life of happiness? Why sacrifice at all? What reason is there to do so? In the entire history of philosophy, the number of rational answers to this question is exactly zero.
There is no reason to act in a self-sacrificial manner, which is why no one has ever provided one. Nor is there any rational justification for sacrificing others, which is why no one has ever provided one of these, either.
Predation (the sacrificing of others for one’s own alleged benefit) is no more in one’s best interest than is altruism. Happiness, like everything in the world, is something specific; it has a nature. Happiness is the state of mind that follows from the successful pursuit of rational, life-serving values. Genuine happiness comes from achieving values, not from stealing them; from thinking rationally and being productive, not from relinquishing one’s mind and becoming a parasite on the thought and effort of others; from earning romance and making passionate love, not from raping people. To willfully become a parasite on the minds, efforts, and bodies of other people—to deliberately reduce oneself to the status of a subhuman creature—is the most selfless thing a person can do. That predators choose to ignore or deny this fact does not exempt them from it. Just as the sun does not revolve around the earth (regardless of what one believes), so too a person cannot achieve happiness by sacrificing other people (regardless of what he claims).
The assertions of predators to the effect that they can achieve happiness by sacrificing others are just that: assertions. They are not based on evidence (a criminal’s makeshift smile and stolen money are not evidence of his happiness). They do not prove anything (proof is logical inference on the basis of evidence). Moreover, such claims flatly contradict the demonstrable fact that rational thought, productive achievement, genuine (earned) self-esteem, and certainty of one’s moral worth are requirements of happiness.
Ultimately, however, in a rational society, the evasions and assertions of predators are of little concern to good people. As I will indicate in the section on politics, a rational society has an efficient means of dealing appropriately with such creatures.
Finally, as to the morality of hedonism, just because someone gets pleasure from or feels like doing something does not mean that it is in his best interest to do it. This is why rational parents encourage their children to think before they act, to recognize that choices have consequences beyond the immediate moment, to learn and embrace the long-range requirements of human life and happiness. It is also why rational adults do not act on their every urge or desire, and why bums and drug addicts are not happy people.
Genuine happiness comes from identifying and pursuing the long-range material and spiritual requirements of one’s life as set by one’s nature. For guidance in understanding and achieving these highly complex needs, whereas egoism provides an entire system of rational explanations and principles, hedonism says: Pay no attention to your nature or needs; do whatever gives you pleasure; do whatever you feel like doing. Hedonism, in other words, under the guise of self-interest, counsels self-destruction.
It all comes down to standards. The standard of value according to altruism is self-sacrifice. The standard of value according to a predator is his whim. The standard of value according to hedonism is pleasure or feelings. The standard of value according to Objectivism and rational egoism is the requirements of man’s life.
By the standard of man’s life, each individual should live his own life for his own sake. He should think rationally and pursue his own life-promoting goals, such as a wonderful career, a passionate romantic relationship, enjoyable recreational activities, great friendships, a rational culture, and a social system that protects his right to do so.
Human life does not require human sacrifice; people can live without giving up their minds, their values, their lives; people can live without murdering, assaulting, or defrauding one another. Nor can human sacrifice promote human life or happiness; it can lead only to suffering and death. If people want to live and be happy, they must neither sacrifice themselves nor sacrifice others; rather, they must pursue life-serving values and respect the rights of others to do the same. This is the basic principle of rational egoism—and the moral foundation for a proper social system.
A Proper Social System
In the realm of politics, Objectivism recognizes that in order to take life-promoting action, a person must be free to do so; he must be free to act on the judgment of his mind, his basic means of living. The only thing that can stop him from doing so is other people, and the only way they can stop him is by means of physical force. Thus, in order to live peacefully together in a society—in order to live together as civilized beings, rather than as barbarians—people must refrain from using physical force against one another. This fact gives rise to the principle of individual rights, which is the principle of egoism applied to politics.
The principle of individual rights is the recognition of the fact that each person is morally an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; therefore, he morally must be left free to act on his own judgment for his own sake, so long as he does not violate that same right of others. This principle is not a matter of personal opinion or social convention or “divine revelation”; it is a matter of the factual requirements of human life in a social context.
A moral society—a civilized society—is one in which the initiation of physical force against human beings is prohibited by law. And the only social system in which such force is so prohibited—consistently and on principle—is pure, laissez-faire capitalism.
Capitalism—which, contrary to widespread miseducation, is not merely an economic system—is the social system of individual rights, including property rights, protected by a strictly limited government. In a laissez-faire society, if people want to deal with one another, they may do so only on voluntary terms, by uncoerced agreement. If they want to receive goods or services from others, they may offer to exchange value for value to mutual benefit; however, they may not seek to gain any value from others by means of physical force. People are fully free to act on their own judgment and thus to produce, keep, use, and dispose of their own property as they see fit; the only thing they are not “free” to do is to violate the rights of others. In a capitalist society, individual rights cannot legally be violated by anyone—including the government.
The sole purpose of the government in such a system is to protect the individual rights of its citizens by means of the police (to deal with domestic criminals), the military (to deal with foreign aggressors), and the courts of law (to adjudicate disputes). Although the government holds a monopoly on the legal use of force, it is constitutionally forbidden to use initiatory force in any way whatsoever—and constitutionally required to use retaliatory force as necessary to protect the rights of its citizens.
For instance, the government is forbidden to seize the property of innocent people (e.g., eminent domain), to forcibly redistribute wealth (e.g., welfare), to dictate the terms of private contracts (e.g., minimum wage and antitrust laws), to restrict freedom of speech (e.g., campaign finance “reform”), to mandate motherhood (e.g., antiabortion laws), to block scientific advancement (e.g., embryonic stem-cell research), to force citizens to fund religious organizations (e.g., faith-based initiatives), and to mandate “community” or “national” service (e.g., mandatory “volunteerism”). Simultaneously, the government is required to enforce laws against murder, assault, rape, child abuse, fraud, extortion, copyright infringement, slander, and the like. The government is also required to summarily dispose of foreign aggressors who initiate or threaten to initiate force against its citizens or their interests.
Capitalism—not the mongrel system of the United States today, but genuine capitalism—is the only social system that consistently prohibits anyone, including the government, from assaulting people or stealing their property. It is the only system that respects and protects individual rights as a matter of unwavering principle. In other words, capitalism is the only system that institutionalizes the requirements of human life in a social context. No other social system on earth does this. Thus, if man’s life is the standard of moral value, capitalism is the only moral social system.
In advocating laissez-faire capitalism, Objectivism opposes the politics of conservatism—such as the notion that we are our “brothers’ keepers” and therefore must sacrificially serve strangers (e.g., Republican welfare programs); the notion that successful businessmen should be regulated (i.e., coerced) “at least to some extent” for the sake of the “little guy” (as if the so-called little guy cannot succeed in life by his own rational thinking); the notion that students in government-run schools should be indoctrinated with “intelligent design” theory or required to pray; the notion that scientists should be forbidden to engage in embryonic stem-cell research while men, women, and children suffer from agonizing diseases that might otherwise be cured (“We mustn’t play God”)—and that those suffering from such diseases should be forced to “live” when they desperately want to die (“We mustn’t play God”); the notion that homosexuals should be prohibited from experiencing the joy of sex (“God disapproves”); and the notion that America’s military should sacrificially spread “freedom” (“God’s gift to mankind”), much less “democracy” (i.e., unlimited majority rule) to savages rather than selfishly and swiftly destroy America’s major enemies (“Love your enemies”).
Objectivism equally opposes the politics of so-called liberalism—such as the notion that people have a “right” to be given goods or services (which obviously requires that someone be forced to provide them); the notion that government agencies, private businesses, and schools should be required to implement racist policies, such as “affirmative action” and “diversity training”; the notion that students in government-run schools should be indoctrinated with the relativism known as “multiculturalism” or the religion known as “environmentalism”; the notion that people should be forced to fund ideas or art of which they disapprove (e.g., via “public” radio or “public” grants); and the notion that America has no right to “interfere with” or “impose Western values on” (let alone destroy) regimes that are responsible for the slaughter of Americans.
Finally, Objectivism emphatically opposes the politics of libertarianism—the anti-intellectual movement that claims to advocate “liberty,” while flagrantly ignoring or denying the moral and philosophical foundations on which liberty depends. Liberty cannot even be defined, let alone defended, apart from answers to questions such as: What is the nature of reality? What is man’s means of knowledge? What is the nature of the good? What are rights, and where do they come from? To say, as libertarians do, that the “non-initiation-of-force principle” is an “axiom” or that liberty can be defended on any old philosophical base—whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, altruist, egoistic, subjectivist, relativist, postmodernist—or on no base at all—is simply absurd. (This is not to say that everyone who calls himself a libertarian is anti-intellectual; rather, it is to say that any attempt to defend liberty while ignoring or denying its intellectual foundations is anti-intellectual.)
Contrary to conservatism, “liberalism,” and libertarianism, the politics of freedom depends on the ethics of egoism—which depends on the philosophy of reason—which is grounded in the basic nature of reality: the fact that things (including human beings) are what they are and can act (and live) only in accordance with their identities. The politics of freedom is the politics of self-interest; it cannot be defended with the ethics of self-sacrifice—or with a philosophy of unreason, unreality, or “super-nature”—or with no philosophy at all.
Objectivists are not conservatives, but, as Rand put it, “radicals for capitalism” (i.e., advocates of its root or foundation). Objectivists are not “liberals,” but absolutists for freedom. Objectivists are not libertarians, but fundamentalists for liberty. This is because Objectivists are radicals for reason—the foundation of which is: reality.
Let us turn now to art, which, according to Objectivism, like ethics and politics, rests on a rational, objective foundation and serves a specific life-promoting purpose.
The Nature and Value of Art
Objectivism holds that art is a requirement of human life and happiness. Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s deepest, most fundamental convictions—such as his views of the nature of the universe, the nature of man, what is knowable, what matters most, what is possible. The purpose of art is to give physical form to such profound abstractions, to make them concrete and observable, and thereby to provide people with a perceptual representation of a particular idea or worldview. This enables people to examine the idea as a physical reality and thus to better understand what it means in practice. In this way, art provides spiritual guidance and fuel for living and achieving one’s goals. Whether a sculpture of a ballerina depicting the skill and grace possible to man—or a novel about great industrialists showing the productive achievement possible to man—or a landscape of a countryside portraying the world as open to man’s investigation and enjoyment—or a painting of a dismal, psychedelic pool hall portraying the world as unstable and inhospitable to man—art brings highly abstract convictions to the perceptual level.
Like everything in the world, art is something specific; thus, it is both knowable and definable. And, like everything man-made, it is properly judged as good or bad by the standard of the requirements of human life on earth.
Thus, Objectivism rejects the idea that art is whatever any self-proclaimed or allegedly “accomplished” artist happens to slap together or place in a gallery. Neither paint randomly splattered on a canvas, nor a bicycle wheel “cleverly” fastened to a stool, nor a word salad neatly printed on a page is art. Such things are not “bad” art; they are not art at all. Art is not the emotional spewing of irrational impulses, but the selective recreation of reality. Because man grasps reality only by means of reason, the creation of art requires the intense use of this faculty; it requires thought, concentration, mental connections, and the transformation of highly abstract concepts and values into the material of perceptual reality. This is not the province of buffoonery; it is the province of genius—and should be recognized and guarded as such.
Objectivism also rejects the idea that, within the range of what is art, no objective criteria exist for judging certain works as better than others. Like every legitimate value, a work of art—whether a painting, sculpture, novel, movie, or symphony—is a value precisely to the extent that it serves some requirement of a rational being’s life. Although there is plenty of room for different tastes within the range of genuine art, there are also within that range objectively better and worse works of art—better and worse by the standards of rationality and man’s spiritual needs.
For instance, because the essence of man’s nature is that he possesses free will, the best art—romantic art—reflects this fact; it depicts man as in control of his life, as capable of reshaping his world according to his values, as the self-made soul that he is. For the sake of example here, let us isolate a particular aspect of a work of art: its subject matter. All else being equal (style, composition, technique, etc.), a painting of a hideous woman screaming in terror on the deck of a sinking ship says one thing; a painting of a beautiful woman masterfully handling a catamaran on a windy day says another. Objectively speaking, two such paintings do not have “equal” value; they do not “equally” serve the purpose of art; and they are not “equally” enjoyed by rational people.
Good art—like everything else on which human life and happiness depend—is a product of rational thought and creative effort. This is yet another reason to embrace and advocate capitalism—and the entire philosophy of reason on which it is based. In a rational, capitalist society, artists are fully free to think and to create as they see fit; nothing stands in their way; the right to freedom of expression is recognized as an absolute. Because the guiding social principle in such a society is that of trade—and because there is no “public” funding of the arts—artists who produce works that rational people value tend to thrive; those who produce works that rational people do not value tend to find other professions.
In sum, the key principles of Objectivism are: Reality is an absolute, reason is man’s only means of knowledge, man has free will (the choice to think or not), self-interest is moral, individual rights are absolute, capitalism is moral, and good art is crucial to good living.
To see the origin of these principles in Rand’s fiction, read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. For a book-length nonfiction presentation of the principles of Objectivism, see Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. For the application of these principles to cultural and political issues of the day, subscribe to The Objective Standard, the preeminent source for commentary from an Objectivist perspective.
1. What is the issue
The present essay is a defense of a view called moral objectivism and attack on its opposite, subjectivism or moral relativism. Moral relativism is probably the subject concerning which more nonsense has been written and said in modern times than any other in moral philosophy. I suspect this is partly because people wish to provide arguments in favor of relativism without first having a clear idea of what their thesis is; partly because the authors' arguments are mostly rationalizations; and partly because the authors have a poor grasp of moral concepts. There is little I can do about the second and third problems, but I will try to help the first here. In this section I define "objectivism" and important related terms and delineate several views that might be called subjectivism, which I contend are all demonstrably false.
I am not chiefly concerned herein to defend any particular moral claims, although I shall mention some uncontroversial moral truths for illustrative purposes. Rather, my concern is to show that questions of value have objective, rational answers but not to provide those answers. The latter is a task for another time.
1.1. "Objectivism" and "relativism"
"Objectivism" denotes the thesis that morality is objective. Subjectivism holds that morality is subjective. Relativism holds that morality is relative. In the sequel, I am interested in distinguishing moral objectivism from its denial; therefore, I assume that "relative" and "subjective" both mean "non-objective". If they do not already mean this, then I stipulate that meaning hereby. There are a number of people who believe moral relativism so defined.
1.2. What is 'morality'
I want to make two points about what morality is as I understand it.
First, the term "morality" is subject to the same ambiguity as most other names for fields of study, which we might call the subjective/objective ambiguity. By this I don't mean to imply that using the word one way commits one to objectivism and using it the other way implies subjectivism or anything like that; there simply are two different legitimate definitions of "morality". On the 'objective' interpretation, "morality" refers to such situations as something's being right, evil, just, or the like. On the 'subjective' interpretation, "morality" refers to theories about or the study of rightness, evil, justice, and the like. For example, "People must not use violence against one another" is a claim about morality in the objective sense - that is, it is a value judgement. It seeks to say what is right, wrong, or the like. On the other hand, "In Xanadu, the use of violence is strongly condemned" is not a value judgement; it can be verified or refuted purely by anthropological observation. It is a statement about morality in the subjective sense. It seeks to say what people consider right, wrong, or the like. I am not going to discuss which of these two interpretations is 'better'. I simply point out the distinction. An analogous distinction applies to many other words, such as "chemistry", "psychology", "zoology", "mathematics", etc. If there were no people, would there still be chemistry? Well, chemistry in the objective sense would exist, but chemistry in the subjective sense would not: i.e., there would still presumably be chemicals with certain properties behaving in certain ways; but there would be no study of chemistry and no theories thereabout.
Second, in this paper it will be convenient for me to use "morality" in a very broad sense. I shall call "morality" (in the objective sense) all facts, if there are any such facts, about what is wrong, good, bad, evil, ill-advised, just, beautiful, or preferable, or any other evaluative property. Anything that is a value judgement will count as part of a morality in the subjective sense. For instance, the fact that Aristotle is a great thinker is a moral fact in the broad sense, because it requires a value judgement to appreciate; so is the fact that it's best to eat when one is hungry, because stating it gives a prescription for action; so is the fact that the world would be better off without tyrants, because it requires a value judgement to observe (calling something "better" as well as calling someone "a tyrant" are value judgements). In particular, I stress that I do not wish to presuppose any particular theory about how people should behave nor any particular reasons why they should so behave. Most people appear to restrict the application of the term "morality" to prohibitions on actions satisfying desires. I disregard this convention. If desires must be held in check, then that will be a moral fact; and equally, if desires need not be checked but provide appropriate and rational reasons for acting (I don't mean merely that they make one want to act, which is a purely descriptive fact and not an evaluation, but that acting in accord with them is a good thing) then that will be a moral fact. In other words, my defense of objectivism, while it says that there is at least sometimes a way one should behave, does not actually recommend anything in particular.
1.3. "Values are subjective" = "All values are subjective"
We want to know whether there are objective values (which I take for the same question as whether morality is objective). It may be asked, what shall we say if it turns out that some values are objective and some are not? The answer I give, by stipulation, is that in that case objectivism is true and subjectivism is false; that is, I interpret "morality is objective" as "some values are objective". I might have made the opposite stipulation - viz. that "morality is objective" = "all values are objective" - but that would be less interesting since, at least on the most obvious interpretation, this would make objectivism into a doctrine that no one holds. For instance, I don't think the value 'the right to punish slaves for disobedience' is objective because I don't think there is any such right. Similarly, any number of values could be enumerated that any given person would declare to be utterly non-existent and thus not objective.
1.4. Three ways of being non-'objective'
Suppose I offer the opinion, "Colors are objective." What then is it that I am saying about colors? What I am saying, I think, is that colors are 'in the object.' In what object? In colored objects. What does "in" mean here? It means that a color - redness, say - is a property of the objects that are said to be red, that is, that the nature of those objects themselves and not anything else determines whether they are red or not. Hence, to say that morality is objective is to say that whether an action is right depends on the nature of that action; whether a person is good depends on the nature of that person; etc. Well, that just sounds trivial. How could anything not be objective?
So far as I can see, there are three and only three ways for some thing, x, to fail to be objective, for instance for values or colors to not be objective:
1. If everything is non-x; e.g., nothing has value or nothing is red. Goodness is not in the object if there isn't anything good. Redness is not in the object if everything colored is some color other than red. For example, if someone asked whether witchhood is objective, I might answer no, because nothing is a witch.
2. If some things are x, but whether a thing is x depends not just on that thing's intrinsic nature but on facts about the subject, i.e., the person who says or observes that the thing is x, as well. Redness is not objective if whether a thing is red 'for some observer' (if that makes sense) depends on the nature of the observer and not just on the nature of the object. Notice that if and only if a quality is relative does it make sense to append "for some observer" in sentences ascribing that quality; and in that case such sentences do not make sense without the addition. For example, word meanings are not objective; they are relative. A word must mean something only 'for some speaker or listener' and what it means depends on facts about that speaker/listener - roughly, what he has in mind when he utters/hears the word. It does not matter what properties the sequence of phonemes has, beyond pronouncibility.
3. If it is neither true nor false that something is x. Someone who thinks values are subjective in this sense would say that value judgements can be neither true nor false. Well, that sounds almost incoherent: how is it possible for a statement to be neither true nor false? Doesn't that violate basic logic? So far as I can see there are just two ways this is possible. First, if saying something is x is not a genuine assertion, then it is neither true nor false. I can't think of any examples of an x for which this is true, but there are numerous utterances that do not assert anything, such as, "Congratulations on your Nobel Prize" or "What time is it?" "Congratulations on your Nobel Prize" is neither true nor false. It just expresses a certain sentiment. Second, if an assertion involves a false presupposition, then it may be said to be neither true nor false. For instance, "The king of France is bald" is neither true nor false because it contains a false presupposition that there is a king of France. Some people at any rate have argued that.
Another way of stating the thesis that morality is objective is to say that values are 'part of the fabric of reality;' that is, there is some actual state of the world that corresponds to a value judgement. Again, that sounds trivial; how could any statement fail to correspond to some state of the world? There are the same three ways in which this could happen: if the statement is false; if it is true, but it corresponds to some state of the subject who observes it and not to the (external) world; or if it is neither true nor false.
1.5. Several relativist theories
Here are a few different things one could believe in order to be a moral relativist:
1. Moral judgements are simply universally in error; i.e., contrary to appearances, nothing is good, right, evil, just, etc. These are concepts without any application.
2. Moral 'judgements' are not genuine assertions. They don't actually claim anything about the world. Instead, they are mere expressions of emotion, as "Hurray" is an expression of emotion.
3. "x is good" means "I like x."
4. "x is good" means "x is ordained by my society."
5. What people do when they make a moral judgement is to project their subjective mental state out into the world. They confuse their emotions with some object in the world and mistakenly take the feeling in them to be some property of the object. This is the most psychologically sophisticated version of relativism. An analogous theory might be held about colors: that when people see one of the objects we call "red," we have a certain characteristic sensation, which sensation we confuse with some property of the object that causes it and call the property of being red.
6. Morals (in the objective sense) are established by convention; i.e., in the same sense in which a society may establish a convention such that certain kinds of pieces of paper are money, or establish conventions such that certain activities constitute marriage, and so on, just so, a society may establish conventions such that certain things are good. Things become good or bad in virtue of conventions.
1.6. What the issue is not
Some people argue about whether morality or anything else can be 'absolute.' "Absolute" might mean "certain", it might mean "exceptionless", it might mean "objective", it might mean "universal" in some sense, or it might mean something else. I don't know what it means in the context "There is an absolute morality;" therefore, I will not use the term. I am not interested here in whether morality is 'absolute' in any of the other senses than "objective".
I am not concerned with whether there are some exceptionless rules for judging moral issues - whether there is an algorithm for computing morality. My own opinion happens to be that there is not, but that has nothing to do with the present issue.
I am also not arguing that there is a universal morality in the sense of a moral code that everybody either does or would accept.
I am not arguing that we can know moral truths with absolute precision or certainty.
I am not considering the issue of whether one should be tolerant of people with differing practices or differing views. That one should be tolerant or that one should be intolerant are particular moral conclusions that are each equally consistent with objectivism.
I am not interested in the question of whether at any given juncture there may perhaps be several distinct, equally right actions available rather than only one.
None of those things is the issue. The issue is only, as I have said, whether moral properties are in the object. Perhaps I shall take up the other issues in other essays, but not now.
By clarifying the theses of objectivism and subjectivism, I may have just drastically reduced the number of opponents I have, for many readers may have simply dropped out of the relativist camp by reason of hearing what exactly relativism is. Indeed, I suspect confusion with other issues may be relativism's strongest means of gaining support. Nonetheless, I have no doubt there is still a substantial number of people who endorse relativism as I have defined it.
2. The consequences of relativism
The concern of this section is slightly off topic. Here I will argue that, unsurprisingly, moral relativism undermines morality and leads to nihilism because it has the consequence that any morality in the subjective sense is both arbitrary and irrational. I say this is off topic because this particular thesis does not show that moral relativism is true or that it is false; however, the issue seems important enough and enough subjectivists fail to understand it, leading them to hold inconsistent positions, for it to be worth addressing.
The argument is extremely simple. Since rational judgement presupposes some ground apart from the judgement on which for it to be based, the denial of objectivism implies the intrinsic impossibility of rational moral judgement, since said denial means that moral values cannot have any independent existence apart from the mind. To put it another way, in order for a judgement to be rational, one must make the judgement because it is true or at least because evidence indicates it is true. That means that the thing must already be true, or already be supported by the evidence. Since according to subjectivism, quite to the contrary, evaluative propositions can never be true prior to being judged correct since moral values can not exist independent of such judgements, it follows that it is impossible to make a rational moral judgement: i.e., rationality requires that a judgement be validated before it is accepted, but relativism implies that it must be accepted before it is valid if it can ever be valid at all (one version of relativism saying that such judgements can not ever be valid - but every version implies that they can not be valid prior to their being accepted), so relativism implies rational moral judgement is impossible.
Relativism makes moral judgement not merely non-rational but positively irrational, insofar as it implies that moral judgement must always proceed according to a manner which is directly contrary to what reason demands - must always occur without basis, that is.
Every action and every moral judgement is, if subjectivism is true, arbitrary - that is, groundless - because any ground for some thing must by definition be prior to that thing and, since (a) the notion of a ground or reason is normative (it implies 'justification') and further (b) in this case the ground in question has to be the truth of the proposition judged, relativism states that no such things as grounds can exist prior to the making of moral judgements. One version of relativism (see above, section 1.4) implies that whatever moral values we adopt are ipso facto right, but that means that a decision about which values to adopt must be arbitrary since anything we picked would be right. Another version implies that whatever values we adopt are wrong since value judgements are always false, which means that we can have no valid values, which means that every decision must be arbitrary.
What this shows is that if one knows moral relativism to be true, then one cannot rationally believe any moral judgement. One cannot do so because in order to rationally believe something, the proposition must first be justified, and as a moral relativist you know that no moral proposition is true before you believe it, so you would not have any justification for accepting it.
I should note that several influential relativists would presumably deny my analysis. J.L. Mackie, for one, claims that his view that moral values are not "part of the fabric of the world" is consistent with any moral views - i.e., he can still make ordinary moral judgements that this or that is good and so on.(1) Subjectivist philosophers, including Mackie, standardly draw a distinction between first- and second-order moral views and hope by this to show that they can maintain their 'second-order' view without giving up any of their first-order moral views. A 'first-order' moral view is a claim about what is good or bad, right or wrong; while a second-order moral view is about the nature of first-order moral views (e.g., what it is for something to be good or bad or right or wrong). The argument, presumably, is that since first- and second-order views are about different things, a second-order view cannot be in conflict with a first-order one, so we won't have to reject any first-order moral views as a result of accepting moral relativism. Relativism is, as it is said, not an ethical theory but a meta-ethical theory.
Frankly, I find that argument preposterous. If your 'meta-theory' consists in the denial of the existence of any subject matter for your theory, how can you continue to have a theory? Suppose that it were claimed that chemicals have no objective existence: can anybody imagine that the adoption of this belief would have no effect on the science of chemistry? Obviously, the entire science would be undermined. By analogy, if someone says that values have no objective existence, moral philosophy is undermined since it has no subject matter. It is then comparable to the study of unicorns. Nothing positive you say about unicorns can be true since there aren't any unicorns. And it makes no sense to say, "Well, I agree that unicorns are not real, but I still think this is a unicorn." How is it any different to say, "Well, I agree that values aren't real, but I still think this is a value"?
3. Arguments for subjectivism
Here I will attack the four main arguments for subjectivism that I know of, each of which is a very bad argument.
3.1. Cultural variance of moral codes
First, it is pointed out that there is wide variation in moral codes from one society to another and from one time period to another. Even people in the same place and time, as in our society, seem to have great difficulty in agreeing on moral issues. Moreover, there does not seem to be any decisive way of resolving disagreements. The best explanation for this situation, says the relativist, is that there are no facts there to determine or to agree to to begin with.
I think the level of disagreement is exaggerated. I think it would be widely agreed that courage, honesty, and kindness are virtues; that life and happiness are good; &c. The argument basically takes the most extreme and atypical examples to make its point.
But more importantly, one glance would show the absurdity of the logical extension of this argument. Disagreements in questions of history or biology or cosmology do not show that there are no facts about these subjects. In fact, the situation described above, wherein people disagree widely and there doesn't seem to be any way of resolving their disputes, is characteristic of all of philosophy. And it is characteristic of every field that is important to people - religion, history, law, politics, metaphysics, ethics, cosmology, etc. People seem incapable of agreeing on whether God exists or not, and there are no arguments or observations that can resolve the dispute to everybody's satisfaction. Does this show that there is no objective fact of whether He exists?
Why is it that people argue interminably about religion but not about mathematics? It is not because numbers are objective and the existence of God and similar issues are subjective. It is, mainly, because ordinary people do not care about the properties of numbers. But they do care immensely about God, life after death, and the like. And they care at least as much about morality and values. And when people care very much about something, and have a vested interest in the answer, they are likely to develop strong, dogmatic opinions and to allow their emotions to prejudice their judgement.
Additionally, as Aristotle pointed out long ago in a remark that richly deserves to be listened to but has not been,
[I]t is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each discipline just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.(2)
Seemingly contrary to popular opinion, there are plenty of perfectly legitimate fields of study that are not exact sciences.
Second, it has been argued from time to time that moral relativism presents a simpler picture of the universe than objectivism. Objectivism postulates these entities, objective moral values, that we could explain the world just as easily if not more easily without. Therefore, the burden is on the objectivist to prove the existence of these things.
I think this argument is insincere; that is, nobody ever became a relativist because of this. It was invented after the fact to confuse objectivists.
The argument is exactly analogous to the following argument for mathematical relativism: Objectivism postulates these entities, objective numbers and numerical relationships, that we could explain the world just as easily if not more easily without. Therefore, the burden is on the objectivist to prove the existence of these things. Since he cannot do so, I conclude that all mathematical statements are arbitrary and subjective.
The flaw is that saying that ethical (or mathematical) statements are objectively true or false does not imply that there exist some supernatural, ethereal substances that are values (or numbers). It just implies that some things have quantities (for mathematics) or some things are good or bad (for ethics). I am not postulating the existence of any new substances. I am only judging that some things are good, and goodness is a quality, not a substance or object. Since, presumably, if objectivism is true then it is necessarily true, and since it is a conceptual and not an empirical issue, the question of simplicity or ontological economy does not arise.
If anything, we should say that the burden of proof is on the moral relativist, for advancing a claim contrary to common sense.
3.3. Where does moral knowledge come from?
Third, the relativist asks, by what faculty does one come to know about moral truths? If one cannot explain how one knows about something, then it is not plausible for one to make claims about it. Is there some special faculty comparable to perception?
The answer is that one figures out prescriptions on the basis of descriptive facts. For instance, one finds out that something is good by rationally drawing this conclusion on the basis of its other properties. It is an old platitude in moral philosophy that you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is', so it is supposed that what I have just enunciated is impossible. Well, in one sense, you cannot derive an ought from an is - in the sense that the prescription will not follow analytically, or just in virtue of the definitions of terms. But in another sense, you can derive an ought from an is - i.e., it will follow necessarily and a priori. Many, if not most, philosophers seem to find this kind of cognition incomprehensible, probably because of a confusion of the notions of necessity, analyticity, and a prioricity. However, examination of just about any mathematical proposition would reveal this mode of cognition - you cannot derive most theorems solely on the basis of definitions. You must also have some intuitive judgements, usually made explicit in the form of axioms. Likewise, you cannot derive substantive moral judgements solely on the basis of definitions (G.E. Moore showed that in his discussion of the naturalistic fallacy), but you can make intuitive judgements.
Moral intuition is not comparable to a special faculty of perception, because moral judgements are supposed to be necessary (given the other, descriptive facts) and not empirical. So moral intuition is just the general faculty of reason applied to a particular subject matter, viz., values, just as mathematical intuition is not a separate quasi-perceptual faculty but rather the faculty of reason applied to numbers.
That we in fact derive moral judgements from descriptive judgements all the time can be exemplified by just about any argument about moral or political subjects. For instance, it may be argued that communism is a bad system of government on the basis that it has caused tens of millions of deaths, that it impoverishes the country in which it is adopted, and that it greatly restricts people's freedom. I think that is a good argument. It certainly is not some kind of simple logical fallacy, as the concept of 'the naturalistic fallacy' would presumably imply, since I am deriving a moral judgement from other, non-moral judgements.
It might be, and standardly is, replied that the argument presupposes certain implicit moral judgements, that life, prosperity, and freedom are good. I think there is something wrong with this, but it would take us too far afield to consider. Suffice it to say that if that is the case, then these suppressed premises that life, prosperity, and freedom are good are simply immediate intuitions. There is no difficulty in this proposal, since there are numerous examples outside ethics of synthetic, a priori judgements apprehended by intuition.
3.4. The political argument
Perhaps the main motivation for relativism among contemporary intellectuals is the appeal to the virtue of tolerance. In essence, the argument is this: objectivism leads to intolerance because it makes us think that we are right and other people who disagree with us are wrong. This causes conflict, chauvinism, and subjugation of some people by others, which is bad. The only way to ensure a desirable attitude of toleration on our part is to posit relativism as a moral postulate, which will reconcile us to the equal legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of all value systems and thereby enable people with different values to live in harmony, provided they accept the postulate.
The first obvious reply to this political argument is that it is a non sequitur - that is, even if true, all it shows is that it would be advantageous to somehow convince people to believe relativism; but it does not show that relativism is actually true.
Second, since this kind of argument would only move people who believe in the value of toleration anyway, it would seem at least as reasonable to simply postulate tolerance as an objective value, as to postulate general subjectivism, if we are interested in promoting tolerance.
Third, there are both theoretical and empirical grounds for believing that the opposite relation between objectivism and toleration from the one urged would exist - that is to say, it is objectivism that leads to toleration and subjectivism that leads to intolerance - for my view encourages an objective and rational attitude towards public policy and other moral questions (Cf. above, section 3.3), whereas subjectivism naturally tends towards an unreasoned and arbitrary approach (Cf. section 2), and it certainly seems that reason would counsel us to avoid destructive conflicts and respect the rights of others, whereas, for example, a purely emotional value system might lead, as it usually has in the past, to fanaticism, xenophobia, etc. If only we could get warring peoples around the world to listen to reason, one is inclined to hope, perhaps they could be convinced to resolve their disputes through negotiation rather than violence - but not if they are convinced that rational argumentation about whatever issues they disagree about is inherently futile.
The connection I suggest is supported by examples: John Locke's political theories, which have probably led more than any others to democracy and respect for universal human rights, are a good example of the kind of conclusions that a serious attempt to identify objective moral values usually leads to. In contrast, the ideologies associated with the two major forms of tyranny of the twentieth century - namely, communism and fascism - have hardly exemplified objectivism. Orthodox Marxism holds that moral values are not objective but are mere fictions invented by the ruling class to further its class interests (much like religion). The German Nazis held that all values are determined by one's race, that the right was just what accorded with the will of the people, and that moral values thus had no objectivity. It scarcely need be pointed out that the subjectivism that these ideologies embraced did not induce toleration on the part of their followers. Instead, it carried the implication that since reason was inapplicable to moral questions, conflicts of values could not be resolved except by the conflicting groups fighting it out.
4. Several versions of relativism refuted
In section 1.4 I delineated three ways in which relativism might be true, and in 1.5 I listed six versions of relativism (each presumably satisfying at least one of those three ways) (see above). In this section I try to drive relativism into a dilemma or series of dilemmas. I will show in turn that each of the possible versions of relativism is false, for different reasons. First, then, consider the six versions listed ....
4.1. Value judgements as universally false
This theory is really quite outrageous. It implies, among other things, that it is not the case that people generally ought to eat when hungry; that Hitler was not a bad person; that happiness is not good; and so on. I submit that this is simply absurd. I feel much more confidence in those denied judgements, as I think nearly everybody does, than I can imagine feeling in any philosophical arguments for relativism. At least, I think it would take an extremely strong argument to shake my confidence that happiness is preferable to misery, or the like. And there does not seem to be any argument at all with that import. It is hard to see how there could be.
This discussion makes me feel like G.E. Moore, who refuted skepticism about the existence of external objects by making a certain gesture and observing, "Here is one hand," and, making another gesture, "and here is another." For just as Moore pointed out that no premises of any philosophical argument could possibly strike him as more obvious and certain than the proposition that "Here is a hand," I find it inconceivable how any philosophical premises could be more obvious and certain than the judgement that happiness is desirable, or numerous other similar value judgements I might make.
I doubt that anybody actually holds this view. Even arch-subjectivist David Hume remarked that "those who have denied the reality of moral distinctions, may be ranked among the disingenuous disputants."(3)(4)
4.2. Moral judgements as expressions of sentiment
Sometimes Hume talks as if he thought moral statements were expressions not of judgements but of emotions. On this view, "x is good" is comparable to "Congratulations," "Hurray," "Ouch," and other non-assertive utterances. That this is false can be seen readily from four considerations.
Call the first the appeal to introspection. The making of a normative judgement is experienced as just that - making a judgement: i.e., as a matter of good phenomenology, when one considers a moral issue, it seems clear, one is engaged in that mental process known as judgement; one is not primarily engaged in imagination or memory or perception or feeling (though those may accompany the process of judgement, of course). And I think that everybody can see this if they think about it - that is why moral judgements are, after all, called "judgements".
If someone reports that when he introspects he does not ever detect a process of judgement going on where morals or practical matters (meaning matters of what to do) are concerned, then in the first place, I won't believe it, and in the second place, if I did then I would conclude that the unfortunate fellow is simply unable to grasp moral concepts and is therefore unable to think about them - I would conclude that he is moved by emotions and instincts rather than reason and morality. Moral concepts and arguments are as a rule highly abstract, and the existence of such people as cannot understand them is certainly not inconceivable. Animals are most likely all in that position.
One point of distinction between judgement and feeling is of activity versus passivity - that is to say, judging is something one does, whereas having a feeling is something that happens to one. Therefore, I am saying that deciding, e.g., what is right, is something that one does (as deciding always is) and not something that one just undergoes. I think the merest introspective reflection will bear me out on this.
Second, moral judgements can properly be called "true" or "false". If somebody says something that is not an assertion - such as "Ouch!", then you cannot 'disagree' - that makes no sense. But if someone says "We should do such-and-such," you can disagree. You can call someone's value judgements true or false in the way you cannot call "ouch!" true or false, which shows that there must be some proposition the value judgements express.
Third, it's pretty obvious that, linguistically, prescriptions take the form of statements, and we all recognize them as such. They use the indicative mood, containing a subject and predicate, &c. And I don't see any special reason for thinking that there is something deceptive about our language (and presumably virtually all others).
Fourth, normative judgements can stand in logical relations to other propositions. For instance, the statement, "I should return this book to the library" straightforwardly entails the admittedly objective statements
I can return this book to the library.
I borrowed this book from the library.
This book exists.
I have not returned this book to the library.
That these descriptive judgements follow from the normative judgement should be uncontroversial. Additionally, the statement, "I should return this book to the library" is correctly said to be in contradiction with the statement, "I should not return this book to the library." But logical entailment and contradiction are relations between propositions. If moral judgements did not assert anything, then one certainly could not deduce anything from them or call them "contradictory" to anything. Therefore, moral judgements express propositional contents.
4.3. "x is good" as synonymous with "I like x"
This theory would have to be expanded to include (re-)definitions of all other evaluative terms as well, of course; however, we can refute this line of approach already.
It makes sense to say, "I like it, but is it really good?" but it does not make sense to say "I like it, but do I like it?" nor "It's good, but is it really good?"
One often thinks that one likes something because it is good, but one does not think it is good because one likes it (unless one is very egocentric).
Therefore, some thing's being good must be different from its being liked. More simply, though, this should be immediately evident, since the statement that any given person has any given psychological state is a descriptive statement, whereas the statement that some thing is good is, of course, normative. The former denotes an empirical matter of psychology. The latter expresses a value judgement. In short, this theory is a simple instance of the naturalistic fallacy. I would lump together with this view any view that identifies good, virtue, and other moral qualities with the tendency to cause some psychological state.
4.4. "x is good" as a synonym for "x is ordained by my society"
The same thing might be said about this theory: namely, to call something good is to express a value judgement, but to say something is ordained by society is to offer a descriptive judgement of anthropology which could be confirmed or refuted purely by observation. This is another case of the naturalistic fallacy.
It is possible to doubt whether what society ordains is good but it is unintelligible to doubt whether what is good is good or whether society ordains what it ordains. Therefore, 'the good' must be something different from 'what society ordains.'
It is also common for society to ordain something because it is good. That makes perfect sense. But it does not make sense to say that society ordains something because it ordains it, or that something is good because it's good.
4.5. Moral judgements as projection
To begin with, it strikes me that confusing one's emotions with physical objects is an extremely childish error to be accusing virtually all humans, including some of the profoundest philosophers, of committing. Strangely, though, it is an error from which, seemingly, animals, small children, and dimwitted and uneducated people are exempt, inasmuch as, I believe it is commonly agreed upon, they fail to use concepts of morality, although they too experience emotion. If this be errancy, it is a form of errancy that is most curiously correlated with intelligence and education.
Second, this kind of theory could be proposed for any quality. That is, for any property that we seem to sense in objects in the world, it could always be asserted that we are projecting our subjective mental state out into the world, and it would be difficult or impossible to refute the assertion. It could, for example, be claimed that colors don't really exist and we merely confuse our subjective sensations with external objects. Arguably, Bishop Berkeley proposed this theory for all physical objects. But it seems to me that if someone is going to propose a theory in this general vein, which implies that people are constantly falling prey to a simple error, then the burden is upon him to produce some powerful evidences to prove his theory.
Third, the theory is highly implausible purely on phenomenological grounds. There isn't anything like a single feeling I have when I contemplate each of the things I consider to be good, as the theory would appear to predict. I think Newton's work on the calculus is extremely good, but I don't feel emotional about it at all. It appears to me that I make evaluations on intellectual grounds. Of course, it is possible to make them on emotional grounds, but then it is possible to believe in God, in the afterlife, and any number of other things on emotional grounds, without that rendering the issues thus treated intrinsically subjective. Moral evaluations are subject to rational argument. And if someone asks me why some course of action ought to be taken and I report that I have a certain feeling, I think everybody, myself included, will find my answer quite inadequate and irrelevant.
Fourth, if this theory is true, then why doesn't everybody wind up with a moral code that says he may do whatever he feels like and other people may only do things that he likes - or rather, at least, one that picks out the same things as being good as happen to be liked by that individual? The fact is, we don't have theories like that. Quite to the contrary - a great many people, one might say even a vast majority of people, have moral codes that frequently pick out as wrong things that they would otherwise enjoy (fornication is the most obvious example of such a thing).
Fifth, it is usual for a person to have a positive sentiment towards something because he believes it to be right or to have a negative sentiment because he thinks it is wrong. That is the way we normally seem to experience the connection between evaluations and emotions. That is why a psychologist would attempt to eliminate a patient's guilt by means convincing him that he is not a bad person, and not the other way around. The theory in question reverses the causal direction.
Finally, the acceptance of this theory would presumably cause us to lose the inclination to moralize, for once we see the truth of it, we would see that all moral statements are intrinsically confused and, therefore, false or unintelligible. But I have said above (section 4.1) that the denial of all moral judgements is absurd and that I do not see how any philosophical premises that could be used to justify the theory in question could be more evident than certain value judgements (indeed, more probable than the disjunction of all possible value judgements). The claim must be either that when we judge something good we are attributing our emotions to it and therefore attributing consciousness to it, which is patently false - I said that Newton's work on the calculus is good, but I certainly don't think it has any feelings - or that somehow there is no intelligible thing that we are attributing. I just don't believe the latter. I think that the concept of a thing's being good makes perfect sense.
4.6. Morals as a matter of convention
It is crucial to note here that the theory I am considering under this heading says that morals in the objective sense are a matter of convention. I think it is perfectly possible for morals in the subjective sense to be established by convention. But it makes no sense to speak of establishing morals in the objective sense by convention. A couple of hypothetical questions should demonstrate this.
The existence of money and what counts as currency are literally established by convention. Imagine a situation in which the United States government changes our currency. It begins to print money with new kinds of pictures on it to replace the old money. A law is passed saying that the old money is no longer legal tender, and the citizens go along with it. We all start using the new money and nobody uses the old ex-money anymore. Now in that situation, would these green pieces of paper I have in my wallet with pictures of dead presidents still have monetary value? The answer is no. They would literally cease to be money in virtue of the conventions we established.
If right and wrong were established by convention, then we should be able to say something similar about them. We should be able to imagine a situation in which our society establishes different conventions and, in virtue of that fact, things that are presently right cease to be right and things that are presently wrong cease to be wrong. What would that be like? Suppose Americans were to decide that the communists were right after all and start electing socialists to government offices. Suppose that we adopt new laws and change the Constitution. The government turns socialist and, of course, becomes repressive, executes dissenters, and starts to drive us into poverty. But most everybody goes along with it. Suppose that there is a general consensus on the desirability of the new form of government. Now what I want to ask about this situation is, would communism be a good form of government, or would it still be bad? Surely this would be a case of establishing conventions according to which communism is good, if there were any such thing? (I could have imagined society turning genocidal or Nazi, etc. The point would be the same.) Yet here communism would still be just as bad as it always was. The fact that something is generally practiced, obviously, does not make it right; that is why it always makes sense to doubt whether current practices are right. It always makes sense to try to establish better conventions, to find conventions good or bad, and so on, which it could not make sense if there were no possible standard of value independent of the conventions themselves.
Note the contrast: because what counts as money is a matter of convention, a change of how we behave will make things that are presently money cease to be such; but a change of how we behave will not make what is wrong cease to be wrong. Therefore, what is wrong cannot be established by convention.
This theory, furthermore, is simply another instance of the naturalistic fallacy. That something is good is a value judgement, but that any given society performs any given set of practices and has any given set of conventions is a purely descriptive (and empirical, anthropological) judgement. They can't be the same.
4.7. The argument generalized
The six versions of relativism I have just considered may not be the only ones. New relativist theories are constantly springing up. However, all relativist theories must fall into one of three categories, as laid out in section 1.4. Since objectivism states that moral judgements correspond to facts about the objects to which the judgements are applied, subjectivism must say (1) that moral judgements are not judgements at all and do not have propositional contents (that is, don't represent genuine claims) or, if they do, (2) what they claim is always false, or, if it is true, (3) it represents something about the subject making the statement rather than the object the statement purports to be about. That these are the only three alternatives possible can be demonstrated from two trivial axioms, namely, the law of excluded middle and the correspondence theory of truth. For if moral judgements represent claims, then we know from the law of excluded middle that they must be either true or false. That is just basic logic. And if they are true, then we know from the correspondence theory that that means they correspond to reality. And, finally, if they correspond to reality but they don't correspond to the nature of the object then they must correspond to the nature of the subject.
But each of these three views is surely false. The first has been refuted above in section 4.2, in which I presented four arguments to the effect that a moral statement is a proposition. The second runs contrary to patent observations that virtually everyone can see, such as the preferability of happiness to misery, the impermissibility of murder, etc. And the third view, which usually leads to commission of the naturalistic fallacy, can always be refuted by simple thought experiments, the general point of which is to hold the nature of the object constant and vary assumptions about the nature of the subject, and notice that the moral qualities remain unchanged. For instance, supposing that we all liked Nazism, yet all the same, it wouldn't make Nazism right; supposing that we had certain emotions, it would not justify genocide; et cetera.
Most versions of relativism involve a reinterpretation or redefinition of moral judgements. What is common to all of the redefinitions of moral concepts is that they leave out everything moral. The very essence of the concept of rightness is that something's being right is a reason to do it. But to say that I like something is not to give a reason for doing it - if somebody said, "Why should we do A?" and I said, "Because I like it," this would not give him a reason. To say that my society approves of something is not yet to give a reason for it either. To express one's emotions does not give anyone a reason for action. Et cetera. But something's being good or right is a reason for doing it (indeed, in the latter case, an absolutely compelling reason).
I have tried to show that, like most false philosophical theories, moral relativism dissolves under clarification. In order to evaluate relativism and objectivism in ethics, we must first give each of these theses a clear meaning. I have defined objectivism as the view that some moral properties appertain to objects in virtue of the nature of those objects. This confined subjectivism, defined as the denial of objectivism, to three possible circumstances under which it could be true: (1) if there were no moral propositions, (2) if moral propositions were universally false, or (3) if the truth of moral propositions depended on the subject who judges them. Although moral subjectivists are usually equivocal vis-a-vis which of these alternatives they mean to assert, we have found that the positing of each of them is flawed in its own way, leaving the relativist no logical space in which to stand. In understanding the issue, it is thus essential to distinguish the different sub-alternatives discussed and pin any given version of relativism down to one of them.
I have also considered some arguments that relativists advance. Whereas one might initially have thought that relativism, being by no means intuitively obvious, would require some pretty compelling arguments to have so firmly convinced such a large majority of the intellectuals of our society, the forthcoming arguments are typically disappointing. The existence of disagreements, by no means unique to ethics, does not imply the absence of facts about which to disagree, and I have explained this disagreement otherwise. The epistemological problem about ethics is paralleled by epistemological problems that could be raised about mathematics, metaphysics, or any other a priori discipline, and should be resolved in the same way, by appeal to the general intuitive cognitive faculty that we humans seem to have. And the appeal to the virtue of toleration, we found, constitutes a better argument for objectivism than for subjectivism. These relativist arguments must be admitted to be at best inconclusive, if not clearly unsound.
Finally, recall that I argued that the acceptance of relativism would undermine all morality. Although the apparent undesirability of this consequence does not prove the theory to be false, if our initial, intuitive confidence in our moral theories is greater than the prima facie plausibility of the arguments offered on behalf of relativism, as certainly seems to be the case, then it would be irrational to reject to former in deference to the latter.
For all of these reasons, I conclude that relativism is both pernicious and logically untenable.
1. Mackie, J.L. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1977) pp. 16, 106.
2. Nicomachean Ethics I.3, 1094b24-28.
3. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, section I.
4. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, section I.