6) Subjective Morality, the is/ought problem and sociopaths
If we start with the assumption that human life has no intrinsic value or purpose, then human rights are just (useful) fictions. I don’t have to agree with you on whether or not abortion is right or wrong any more than whether or not lilies are prettier than daffodils. Neither is objectively true and both are matters of opinion. Moral values reduce to expressions of sentiment, preference or social conditioning and they lack rational authority over those who disagree with them. No one has any obligation to agree with anyone else on any subjective issue. Well, perhaps you should agree that chocolate ice cream is the best flavor. Any other view is beyond redemption.
Some people genuinely lack sympathy, empathy and guilt. We might refer to them as sociopaths and we can punish, restrain or dislike the serial murderer or child predator, but we cannot say their behavior is wrong or that that our sentiments and moral preferences are actually better than theirs. We can only disagree with them. We can be passionate about our views, like our favorite football team or baseball player, but I think most people recognize morality belongs in a different category. I certainly won’t try to lock you up in jail because you don’t think Tom brady is the greatest quarterback of all time.
Some people seem to have little regard for human life and if we describe the world without telos, can we really blame them? Expecting something to have a high view of life when we claim it has no intrinsic meaning or purpose is like expecting something to be fruitful and multiply after castrating them. Subjective morality has little to say to the sociopath or person who does not share the same views. Ed Feser wrote:
“And for that reason the Humean has nothing to say to the sociopath who simply happens not to share these attitudes, other than that he is not like most people. Nor does he really have anything to say to a group of sociopaths – Nazis, communists, jihadists, pro-choice activists, or whomever – who seek to remake society in their image, by social or genetic engineering, say. The Platonist, Aristotelian, or Thomist can say that such people are behaving in an inherently irrational and objectively wicked manner, given human nature. All the Humean can say is “Gee, hope they don’t succeed.” [The last Superstition]
Our inability to condemn the sociopath stems from the categorical gap between facts and values. “Is” statements are descriptions of things. “Ought” statements are about actions or what you should do. We cannot logically move from “is” to “ought” without other premises. This argument goes back to Hume and without final causality or telos in the world, the Humean gulf between “is” and “ought” is infinite in extent. Here are Hume’s own words:
“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning… when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.” [A Treatise on Human nature]
An example of this will be helpful:
1. Cyanide is poisonous to humans.
2. Bob is a human.
Therefore, you should not give Bob cyanide.
This argument is not valid. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. We would need to smuggle in a hidden premise such as “It is wrong to poison humans.” But this is the exact premise subjectivists cannot demonstrate is true. What happens if we add a few more premises:
1. Cyanide is poisonous to humans.
2. Bob is a human.
3. If you give Bob cyanide he will suffer.
4. If you give Bob cyanide he will die.
5. If Bob dies his family will be sad and miss him.
Therefore, you should not Give Bob cyanide.
Even if all five premises are true, the argument is still not valid. We could stack one million descriptive or “is” statements but it will not matter. We cannot deduce morals or values from statements that don’t already have them. Just because something “is” does not mean we ought. Now someone might claim, “Well, harming innocents is obviously bad” but this is not a universal fact like the law of gravity in a subjective framework. It is a shared preference, one that the sociopath is perfectly free to ignore.