Simple Subjectivism

This paper is going to discuss Ethics and Ethical Theories. It will include an introduction to ethical theories, virtue ethics, and care ethics. There will be sections discussing absolutism versus relativism, consequentialism versus deontological ethics, and lastly, free will versus determinism. It will also include a discussion about the study of morality and identify which of the approaches (Scientific, Philosophical, or Theological/Religious) are closest to my own personal beliefs. There will be a discussion regarding the three sources of ethics

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,

Thinking that there is no moral truth out there is a concept that is hard to think about, and even hard to picture. This is what it stated in the book, “Ethical Subjectivism is the theory that our moral opinions are based on our feelings and nothing more.” As you continue reading you will see that Rachel disagrees with ethical subjectivism. This theory states things such as there is no such thing as a right or a wrong. I agree with Rachel.

The second chapter of the book covers three moral views – objectivism, relativism, and emotivism. Objectivism is the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone. For example, according to an objectivist moral view torturing people is not acceptable universally. The second moral view is relativism. There are two types of relativism: cultural relativism, which approves an action if it is morally right to one’s culture; and subjective relativism – the view that an action is right if one approves of it (Vaughan 20). For example, some cultures support the sex-selective apportion, because female babies are not encouraged (Sex-Selection). If a group of people believe it is right, then

In the essay of “The Poison of Subjectivism” by C.S.Lewis, he says “it is useless to compare the moral ideas of one age with those of another: progress and decadence are alike meaningless words.” Our society constantly changing, people’s view follows the change and it also produces action. We can’t be shifting around by what the world views are. We must have a biblical worldview which we can find from the Bible. As I am studying theology it is my responsibility to bring the biblical worldview to those who have a different worldview.

man compromise his personal belief because of another’s opinion or even a law. In this essay, we

Louis Vaughn states that the purpose of morality is not to describe how things are, but to “prescribe how things should be” (2). In Philosophy, moral relativism and moral objectivism are two conflicting but somewhat overlapping school of thought. These beliefs govern the way an individual acts; they also decide the ethical guidelines from which the law is written. In this essay we will delineate the differences between the two sects of belief.

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.

There are many things in this world that many people have very strong opinions on, such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and gun control. People have these opinions and they think that the opinions that they hold are right. Ethical subjectivism states have everyone has different opinions, but there are no “facts” when morality is involved. As a result, no one is “right.” For example, in the book Matt Foreman approves of being gay while Michele Bachmann disapprove of being gay. When it is put like this, the two people who have completely different options on people being gay cannot argue that the other person accepts or does not accept people being gay according to Subjectivism. This is what the authors of the book were trying to get say is that subjectivism is flawed.

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

Moral philosophy considers the role of morality in an individual’s life. In her essay, “Moral Saints”, moral philosopher Susan Wolf strives to establish what is wrong with morality. Wolf does this by examining the idea of Moral Sainthood, which teaches that an individual should be as morally perfect as possible. Through the analysis of two distinct products of Moral Sainthood, Wolf arrives at the conclusion that while there is nothing inherently wrong with morality, there are drawbacks when it dominates an individual’s life. In this paper, I will first establish the expectations that Wolf must meet in order to prove her argument. I will then present the two products of Moral Sainthood that she will be using as proof. After, I will raise an objection to the soundness of her argument. Lastly, by responding to what I believe Wolf would reveal as an oversight on my part, I will insist that her argument still is not consequential.

Ethics, also know as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy concerned with the study of questions of right and wrong and how we ought to live. Ethics involves making moral judgements about what is right and wrong, good or bad. Right and wrong are qualities or moral judgements we assign in action and conduct. Ethics proves us with a way to make more choices when we are uncertain about what do in a situation involving moral issues.

Moral realists claim that despite human opinions about ethical values, there are objective moral truths which make some ethical claims true. Despite the objections of moral realists, what some people refer to as moral truths are nothing more than mistaken assertions based on the presumption of moral qualities; in fact, this paper will explore the idea that there are no accessible moral features in this world and any attempt to assert moral truths is just a reaction to an idea based on social expectations.

Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a subject of philosophy that engages itself in systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong. It investigates questions of right and wrong and of the best way of living for people. In this essay I am going to explain the differences between the ethical schools of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics and argue that in my opinion deontology is the most reasonable theory of the three.