The philosophical concepts of subjectivism and Divine Command Theory are closely related and intertwined. One has to clearly understand the meanings of each before understanding their relationship with each other. It is the purpose of this essay to discuss whether or not Divine Command Theory is or is not a form of subjectivism.
According to Rachels, subjectivism is "the idea that or moral opinions are based on our feelings, and nothing more" (Rachels 26). This would indicate that there is no such thing as objective right or wrong. Ethical subjectivism does not try to say what is ethically right or wrong but simply to say that those opinions are based on personal feelings. In the simplest form, ethical subjectivism means that if something is moral or ought to be done, then the person speaking or writing approves of that thing or action. Within simple subjectivism there are inherent flaws and contradictions. People are fallible in their judgments, and there are disagreements between individuals about what is morally correct or not, leading to contradictions between people or within a single person (Rachels 29).
Second stage subjectivism, developed by philosopher Charles L. Stevenson, focuses on the emotional aspect of making a judgment and its communication through language and word choice. When one speaks about a moral situation, there generally is a strong indication in the language that it definitely wrong or right and the listener should obey what the speaker says. The purpose in this type of exchange is to influence the listener's behavior or opinion (Rachels 31). When reason is brought into the argument, one reaches a sort of third level of ethical subjectivism. It is no longer an emotional command, but a reasoned communication that attempts to appeal to the intellect and critical capacities of the listener.
In order to clearly understand the relationship between subjectivism and Divine Command Theory, a defi...