Ethical Subjectivism In Matt Foreman, Directed By Michele Wachman

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 issues or principles are expression of how we should behave as individuals and as a society. They are moral judgments that can be applied to a particular situation to help us make decisions and guide our behavior. Inevitably, they are linked to cultural values at a particular time in our history and are subject to change as attitudes and values evolve. What was normative just a half century ago may now be considered insensitive today.

The concept of health is beyond the absence of illness; there are multiple determinants of health evident in the Institute of Medicine’s model of health (See Fig. 1) (Crosby, Quinn, & Kalinyak, 2015). According to the model health is influenced by the individual’s biological traits such as age, sex, race and biological factors, and social networks, culture and living, working and environmental conditions. In a nutshell, health is determined and influenced by the combination of physical, psychological, and social factors over an individual’s lifespan as displayed in the biopsychosocial multidisciplinary model (See Fig. 2). Firstly, physical health or allostasis refers to the maintenance of physiological homoeostasis in changing circumstances

Ethical relativism is not just simply one concept. It can be divided into two categories cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. Cultural relativism states that what a culture finds correct is what is correct, within its own realm. Ethical subjectivism are what people as individuals find correct, or the values a person stands for and what they support whereas culture relativism is has a certain standard of morality held within a culture or society. These both view people as being in charge of their own morality. However, there are some problems with the view ethical relativism itself. For instance marital rape, machismo in Hispanics culture and premarital sex. In this dissertation I will be discussing problems with ethical relativism, while using the examples above.

College sports have gained a lot of positive attention over the past couple of years due to the athletes’ passion and desire for the sports. Being nationally televised and making it deep into big tournaments can rack up a lot of wealth that colleges and universities can respectively cash in. Only the schools and sponsors of these profiting tournaments and bowl games collect the profits that athletes bring in and it is not fair. The athletes do not garner any benefits for the timeless hours and dedication they put into their sports. College athletes should be paid because they bring in an extensive amount of money and publicity to colleges and

The realization that our approval of ethical views can change may seem like a threat to subjectivism, but it is not. When my knowledge and experience regarding an ethical view changes, I enter a state of contemplation regarding that particular ethical view. By “state of contemplation”, I mean a state in which I do not know whether I agree or disagree with the ethical view in question. Remember that in subjectivism, the ethical views I agree with are the morally right views (Shafer-Landau, 296). When I am in a state of contemplation, I no longer know what is morally right because I no longer know what view best aligns with my knowledge and experience. Subjectivism can allow for states of contemplation because they are states in which we have suspended judgement of what is morally right.

Have you ever heard about CTE? CTE is a progressive degenerative disease of the brain found in athletes (and others) with a history of repetitive brain trauma, including symptomatic concussions as well as asymptomatic sub concussive hits to the head. An article about the dangers of CTE was recently posted on CNN.com by Jason Hanna, Debra Goldschmidt, and Kevin Flower.

An argument for ethical objectivism would be Pojman and Fieser’s moderate objectivism. According to them, a moral claim is objectively true when it describes an objective moral principle. An objective moral principle is a rule that, if generally followed, would optimally perform the function of serving human needs and interests by reducing harmful social conflict and promoting beneficial social cooperation. (Luco, Week 6 Notes p.1)

Cultural relativism describes the way that individuals behave. Meanwhile, ethical subjectivism is the view that an act is morally right just because one approves of it, or their commitments allow it. An action is wrong just because one disapproves it or their commitments forbid it. In this essay, I will argue that

In a world of many cultures, beliefs, and varying society’s all across our known world, different people hold very different moral standards. Moral subjectivism, the idea that there is no moral law and that all actions, right or wrong are dependent on the person making the judgement, is the only explanation which can account for the diverse moral views that are so prevalent across the globe for billions of people. There is no known absolute law which is universal across the cosmos let alone the earth, as a result all morality is relative.

The first ethical belief that the author discusses is Cultural Relativism. It talks about the how diversity is becoming more and more apparent between different cultures worldwide. The author mentions that often customs that are unquestioningly accepted in one part of the world are considered abhorrent in another, for example: human sacrifice. Cultural Relativism claims that there are no absolute standards for moral

The additional version of ethical subjectivism is well-known as emotivism. This was very popular in the mid-20th century due to Charles L. Stevenson. Stevenson saw language used in numerous, different amount of ways. Language is used to make statements to state facts. In nearly some cases, saying something that is either true or false, the purpose of that is to convey statistics to the audience. Language is similarly used for additional things too. For instance, say that I said, "Shut the cabinet door!;” this exclamation is neither true nor is it false. It is envisioned to convey information; it is a straightforward command. It has a soul, determination to get somebody to do something to some degree. (Rachels 36-39).

There are many differences between Simple Subjectivism and Emotivism. This paper will compare and contrast both theories, as well as explain why Simple Subjectivism cannot explain moral disagreement, and Emotivism can but incorrectly. By arguing these two ethical views, I can better explain or make a claim on how one ought to understand occurrences of moral

Moral nihilism is the thought that objective moral standards don’t exist. Moral nihilism theorists believe that there are no moral truths and that facts are real but that values are false. This can relate to Wakefield because he believed that what he was doing what fine and he didn’t see that his society had moral standards, or even if he did he didn’t acknowledge those standards. How this relates to moral nihilism is that Wakefield might not have believed that there are moral standards in the world and that values don’t really matter, he was going to do what was right for him.

The passage was talking about how moral theories are formed within people. One of the major ways the passage tells of how people form these moral theories is through how they feel and unrelated to external subject material — ethical subjectivists. And how that apposes the idea of culture dictating what is ethical based on popular opinions — cultural relativism. I found it interesting that the idea of forming a moral theories based on fallacies or “just because” is wrong. To that, who decides that way of thinking is wrong, who is to say what is the right or “better way” of forming moral