Critique of Subjective Values in Education and Literature
Initially, the authors argued that value judgments merely reflect personal feelings, not objective characteristics. They claimed that statements like “This case is quite nice” express only the speaker’s emotional state. However, this argument has two flaws: it trivializes value judgments and renders them meaningless, and it implies that we can never make meaningful statements about anything beyond our own feelings. Regarding literature, they suggest that past writings should evoke beautiful feelings, and that literature evoking negative emotions is destructive. They criticize certain literature for potentially associating negative feelings with childhood experiences. They argue for protecting young minds from such feelings, advocating for new values while dismissing others as negligible.
The authors, referred to as Gaius and Titius, are described as innovators who undermine traditional values. They propose new subjective values while claiming that existing values are merely a facade. They argue for the necessity of values, both objective and subjective. They use the example of someone reading poor literature to illustrate the complexity of literary criticism. They aim for simplicity but acknowledge the difficulty of explaining complex concepts in a simplified manner. They suggest that protecting young minds from negative feelings in literature is crucial. They believe that an education system rejecting natural law is doomed to destruction, and they defend this tradition to preserve Western civilization. They advocate for an objective moral code and criticize opposing attitudes.
The central issue is whether individuals should be initiated into objective values or conditioned to subjective values. The authors argue that emotions should either be removed or replaced with feelings unrelated to truth or objectivity. They criticize this approach as manipulative. They emphasize the importance of trained emotions in guiding intellect and reason. They criticize modern education and Gaius and Titius for lacking emotional depth, referring to them as “men without chests.” They summarize Gaius and Titius’s argument as discrediting appropriate emotions and objective values, thereby destroying mankind and promoting subjectivism. Point #1: Subjective Destruction of Society. An education in moral subjectivism will ultimately destroy the society that accepts it. Lewis argues that the pragmatic failure of subjectivism is evidence of its falsity. Point #2: Gaius and Titius’s Contradictions. While embracing moral subjectivism, they promote certain objective values. While advocating relativism, they subtly embrace absolutism. Their philosophy is self-contradictory. They aim to influence young people’s moods to create a better society, yet their skepticism applies only to others’ beliefs, not their own. Point #3: The Failure of Utilitarianism. If traditional, objective morality is rejected, what basis remains for new values? If values are not objective, why should one die for their country or a friend? Utilitarianism offers a pragmatic justification: actions are good if they benefit society. However, if Gaius and Titius’s proposal lacks a rational basis, their alternative foundation for ethics is instinct.