Subjectivism in Ethics and the Fashion Industry
We need to explore ethical subjectivism to understand whether our moral opinions are grounded solely in our feelings, outside of what is objectively right or wrong. This moral theory asserts that when we label actions as "evil" or "good," we merely express our personal opinions rather than stating factual truths about those actions. Essentially, ethical subjectivism suggests that moral judgments are reflections of individual emotions and nothing more. If you adopt this perspective, you are still holding moral opinions, yet acknowledging these opinions are subjective and not universal truths. And often than not, moral judgments are personal expressions and do not represent any objective moral reality. In this blog article, we will delve into subjectivism in ethics and its impact on the fashion industry to move closer to sustainable fashion.
Simple Subjectivism Explained
The simplest version of ethical subjectivism asserts that when a person declares something as morally right or wrong, they are merely stating their approval or disapproval of it.
However, this "simple subjectivism" faces several objections:
Infallibility Issue: Simple subjectivism implies that individuals are infallible in their moral evaluations, as long as they accurately represent their feelings. This contradicts the reality that people can make mistakes and change their judgments over time.
Moral Disagreement: Simple subjectivism struggles to explain moral disagreements. If moral judgments are merely expressions of personal attitudes, then apparent disagreements in ethics are not genuine disagreements at all.
Self-Contradiction: Simple subjectivism can lead to contradictions. If one person says "X is right" and another says "X is wrong," both statements could be true according to their personal feelings. However, this leads to the untenable conclusion that the same action can be both right and wrong simultaneously.
Simple subjectivism could not explain moral disagreement because, once it interpreted moral judgments as statements about attitudes, the disagreement vanished.
Evolution and Critique of Ethical Subjectivism
Like many philosophical theories, ethical subjectivism has undergone significant refinement since its inception. Initially, it was presented in a straightforward form drawn from David Hume's idea that morality is based on sentiment rather than fact. Yet this theory holds serious flaws in the original formulation. Critics argued that simple subjectivism implies infallibility in moral evaluations and fails to account for moral disagreements and contradictions.
Emotivism: An Improved Version of Ethical Subjectivism
In response to these criticisms, philosophers like Charles L. Stevenson developed a more sophisticated version known as emotivism. Emotivism differentiates itself from simple subjectivism by emphasizing the role of language in moral judgments. It suggests that moral language is not used to state facts but to influence behavior and express attitudes.
Emotivism holds that moral judgments are not true or false statements but are akin to commands or expressions meant to influence attitudes and actions. This perspective avoids the pitfalls of simple subjectivism by denying that moral utterances are factual statements. Instead, it views them as expressions intended to affect how others think and behave.
The Role of Reason in Ethics
Despite its improvements, emotivism also faces significant challenges, particularly regarding the role of reason in ethics. Effective moral judgments need to be supported by reasons; without this, they become arbitrary. Emotivism falls short when it fails to connect moral judgments with reasoning. This is because a robust ethical theory must incorporate the weight of reason to determine the truth of moral judgments.
Moral problems are a matter of weighing the reasons or arguments given for or against the various alternatives, we need to show the argument of how something is wrong to show the arguments in its support are unsound, if so, then we have proven it wrong], regardless of what attitude one might have.
A key argument against ethical subjectivism is the belief in objective moral truths, which are determined by reason rather than mere subjective feelings. Moral truths can be seen as conclusions backed by sound reasoning, independent of individual opinions or desires. To resolve moral problems, one must weigh the reasons and arguments for and against various actions, seeking the position that reason supports the most.
Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism in the Fashion Industry
Applying ethical subjectivism to the fashion industry reveals how this theory can influence business practices and consumer behavior. The fashion industry, fraught with ethical dilemmas such as labor exploitation, environmental impact, and cultural appropriation, provides a fertile ground for examining ethical subjectivism.
When fashion brands make moral claims about their practices—like promoting sustainability or fair labor—they often reflect the subjective attitudes of their stakeholders. However, consumers and critics may challenge these claims, demanding objective evidence and reasoning. This dynamic underscores the tension between subjective moral expressions and the need for objective, reason-backed ethical standards in the industry.
For example, a brand claiming to be "ethically produced" based on its internal standards might face scrutiny if external evaluations reveal labor abuses. Here, subjective ethical claims clash with objective assessments, highlighting the limitations of relying solely on personal attitudes in ethical judgments.
In considering moral questions, whether in everyday life or complex industries like fashion, we must ask ourselves why a particular moral judgment should be accepted. While feelings and attitudes play a role, ethical subjectivism's focus on personal sentiments may lead us astray. Moral thinking and conduct require weighing reasons and being guided by them. To achieve meaningful ethical standards, especially in impactful sectors like fashion, we must move beyond subjective expressions and ground our judgments in robust reasoning and enforceable objective evaluation for further accountability in the industry.