The Poison of Subjectivism

C.S. Lewis starts this piece by talking about value judgements.  He says that it was not until modern times that thinkers questioned whether their value judgments were objective or not.  The modern view believes that value judgements are not judgements at all.  He goes on to say a critique of that the Third Reich's definition of justice is perfectly groundless if we regard morality as a subjective sentiment to be altered at will.  There must be an objective standard to make judgements.

He than goes on to address moral reformers who seeks to make a "better" morality, something more "good" and "solid."  Lewis dismisses these reformers saying that they have to inevitably revert back to the standard of traditional morality in order to justify their position.  They are forced to appeal to the very thing that they are trying to overthrow.  They are sitting on a branch of the tree and trying to chop at the trunk of the tree at the same time.  There are two options according to Lewis, either keep traditional morality or have no values at all.

Lewis then goes on to talk about the idea that a permeant moral does not allow for progress.  He replies emphatically that having a permanent moral standard does the exact opposite.  If good is a fixed point then it is possible for a train to come nearer and nearer to it.  If good is not a fixed point than morality has no direction, there is no hope for even pointing the train in the right direction.  Morality would not be allowed to change for the better or for the worse.

Lewis says that we will perish if we do not have the nursery-like belief in absolute values.  He says if we return to these values we will favor candidates who solicit our votes by other standards than have recently been in fashion.  If we believe good is something to be created we will demand our leaders have  qualities such as "vision," "dynamism," and "creativity."  If we return to the objective view we will demand much more beneficial qualities such as virtue, knowledge, diligence, and skill.  For he says:
"Vison" is for sale, or claims to be for sale, everywhere.  But give me a man who will do a day's work for a day's pay, who will refuse bribes, who will not make up his facts, and who has learned his job"

I completely agree with Lewis that moral reformers have to hold on to a piece of traditional morality to justify their causes.  If they cannot tie their cause somehow to an objective value people will not believe that there is any authority behind what they say.  Even the people who claim some of the farthest out moral beliefs appeal to objective morality very often even if it is not on the surface of what they say.  This appeal lurks underneath what they say and is the only thing that gives anything they say any legitimacy in the minds of people listening.  They cannot claim that what they say has no objective standard behind it then there would be no reason for anyone to follow anything that they said.

I really liked how Lewis used that last paragraph to tie how a society's view about objective values changes how they select their leaders.  I do think that if a society does not have an absolute standard they will be drawn toward leaders who have vision, dynamism, and creativity.  If a society holds on to objective values they will be drawn to rulers with rarer and more beneficial qualities such as virtue, knowledge, diligence, and skill.  I really agree with him on this issue.  I think a very good gauge into a society's views about values are the qualities possessed by the rulers it selects.  Virtue, knowledge, diligence, and skill are much rarer and more beneficial qualities and they are the result of a belief in objective values.