Ethical Subjectivism: Going In The Wrong Direction

Loretta Kopelman’s dissertation, Female Genital Circumcision and Conventionalists Ethical Relativism, takes a new approach in a global plight. Kopelman begins her thesis by elaborating on a particular tribe in southern Kenya. She describes how young girls are being mutilated for marriageability. Their fathers, eager for large dowries, perform the ritual on girls as young as nine. While some victims are able to escape and seek sanctuary, this obviously isn’t always possible and thus these girls must live with an inflicted deformity their whole life that doesn’t only cause serious health complications but sometimes even death.

There are many meta-ethics concepts in philosophy that help deal with common objection and disparagement between certain situations and topics. The first meta-ethics concept is Ethical Objectivism. Ethical objectivism is a view where an action is deemed right or wrong without the opinion and thoughts of an individual. The three main branches of ethical objectivism that will be discussed in the following passages are moral universalism, moral realism and moral absolutism. The next meta-ethics concept is ethical subjectivism. Subjectivism states that a claim is dependent on a persons opinions and beliefs. Lastly, the third and final meta-ethics concept is ethical relativism. Relativism involves culture. The following will reveal objectivism, subjectivism and relativism and the ramifications of history, strength and weaknesses of these three meta-ethics concepts.

All the ethical theories are going to be defined using The Philosopher’s Way by John Chaffee. Chaffee defines ethical subjectivism as, “The view that the ultimate moral authority is the individual or the ‘subject’” (386). Next,

Ethical relativism is a theory based on the belief that there are no general standards that are considered to be ethically acceptable. Ethical relativists believe that there is no actual standard of what is right or wrong. The two forms of ethical relativism are personal, or individual ethical relativism and cultural ethical relativism.

The idea of values merely being subjective are a denial of the need and possibility of morality. Consequently, if morality is not present there will be no need to determine which values should be accepted as well as an acceptable standard of how an individual should act. Emotions are left to rule over to make the decisions. Where no moral judgement is practised then justice is impossible and crimes cannot be punished. This journal article further illustrates the problem with ethical subjectivism. If subjective preferences determine our ethical conceptions then no conception is inferior or superior to the other. However as we attempt to determine what constitutes an ethical conduct we do in fact find that certain ethical conceptions are superior to others. For example, in the context of the holocaust, we deem the sanctity of human life and non-discrimination as superior over the preservation and propagation of the Aryan race. Within Chapter 2 Lewis highlights one of the most intriguing aspects of human nature is that morals do not change but rather, they evolve. The sympathies of the average person have substantially grown within modern society as opposed to the past hundred years. There is now a significant development in the moral beliefs regarding issues such as the rights of women, racial discrimination, child labour and the abuse of animals for public entertainment. The main reason for this advancement in our moral view of society is our contact and association with other people. When we share common interests with others and strive towards one goal we are able to extend our affection to others as we share in their human nature. Even an increase in travel and the access to international communication has allowed us to encounter more people than any other generation in history. The conclusion of part 3 of the

To thoroughly understand subjectivism, it is important to consider how we decide what ethical views to agree with. When faced with two different ethical views, we gather our knowledge and experiences of each of the views together and compare them. Then we use our best judgement on the comparison to choose the ethical view that aligns most with our knowledge and experience. According to subjectivism, the view we choose becomes morally right for us (Shafer-Landau, 296). Further, it is important to note that our knowledge and experiences regarding ethical views can change over time. This means that our approval of an ethical view can change as well.

During this interview, I addressed some of parts highlighted in Ethical Principal 2.1.1 of the social work Code of ethics. I demonstrated professional demeanor and behavior by stating the confidentiality statement and I guided the client to know that she could express herself freely and openly without judgement. When the client and I first sat down I also made sure to set the mood with a relaxed “Good Morning how are you doing today” This lead to start other side conversations consequently creating an atmosphere appropriate for this type of interview. Because we could converse on other subjects besides the actual question. Thus, we could engage in effective communication from the beginning. We were also able to make good non-verbal gestures

The life of prisoners some may never know. There are those who care not to know what goes on behind that wired fence. We find that some people that are convicted of crimes that they did not commit. Some people would rather turn their heads to what actually happens in a prison institution, because they feel it is no concern of theirs. Innocent women and men face a disaster in life when they find their selves incarcerated in such facility as these. The treatment in prison facilities toward prisoners with health issues or those who develop health concerns that

A resident advisor in the dormitories of a college might think it is their moral obligation to write their peers up for underage drinking. I might believe that underage drinking is a victimless crime and a resident advisor’s moral duty is to only write up students for the destruction of property or if they are disturbing others. Here we have two different people with differing viewpoints. The two parties would both like to believe that they have the moral ground on their side, but is there a set moral code or law that would define one of these choices as right, and one as wrong, of course not. The sole way to explain these inconsistent moral views is with moral subjectivism. Each individual is using their own moral compass to guide the decisions they make. Each and every person is entitled to believe what they want to in the case of right or wrong. Something I might consider to be morally justified, might spark volatile disagreement from others. Even

Ethical Relativism V/S Objectivism 1. How should rational people and citizens of a democratic society argue about values? The Ethical relativist will argue that there are no moral absolutes or moral right or wrongs.

On controversial ethical issues, I am a universalist believing in my viewpoints of ethical issues such as abortion, euthanasia are non-negotiables. For controversial ethical issues I would not waiver against the ethical issues however, I realize not everyone has the same viewpoint. I believe it is important to create laws and regulations for society to comply to provide guidelines to contend with controversial issues which disrupt the humans and society. The viewpoint of the universalist and relativists are clearly different on the ethical issues of abortion and euthanasia. It is extremely important to maintain a balance between these two strong factions which often collide on their viewpoints trying to change the laws to suit their morals

Subjectivism clenches that there are no objective ethical properties and that ethical statements are in fact arbitrary because they do not express unchangeable truths. Instead, moral declarations are made true or false by the attitudes or conventions of the spectators, and any ethical sentence just implies an attitude, opinion, personal preference or feeling held by someone. Thus, for a statement to be considered morally right hardly means that it is met with a green light by the person of interest. Another way of examine this is that judgments about human conduct are form by, and in many ways restricted to, perception or cultural believes.

The long debated question of the importance of men and women and their roles has raged on for years. Should men and women be treated equally, that truly is the question that seems to have more answers than resolution. Applying the question to Deontology and the work of Immanuel Kant, the answer would be all people regardless of gender should be treated equally. However, these theories do not take into account the actions of the male or female in question. The question still remains, should men and women be treated equally or should it be based on the situation, all accounts will be taken into further consideration.

AVirtue ethics or the virtue theory, is an ethical theory that examines the character of a human for morality (Dreisbach, 2013). When discussing the ethical and moral reasoning behind the racial divide of incarceration rates, virtue ethics requires us to evaluate the morality of the person doing a given act, rather than the act itself (Dreisbach, 2013). Using virtue ethics, you can look at the racial disparity from two perspectives that of the offender and that of the people enforcing the laws. From the offender’s perspective you have to look at the values of each individual offender who breaks the law, you have to dissect their upbringing to determine their moral compass. As far as the government officials whether local, state, or federal each individual person’s morals have to be looked at, whether they are the person who drafts a law or bill to help or further harm the issue of racial disparity in incarceration rates.

Cultural and ethical relativisms are widely used theories that explain differences among cultures and their ethics and morals. Morality deals with individual character and the moral rules that are meant to govern and limit one’s character. On the other hand Ethics is somewhat interchangeable with morals, but it actually defines the principles of right conduct, thus to some extent, enlarging its scope to a societal or communal level. Ideally, ethics play a vital role in determining the dos and don’ts when dealing with the society. This essay will discuss what ethical realism is, analyzing why ethical relativism is unsound and unreliable in relation to the relevant evidence and literature, providing valid reason to ascertain why this is the case.