The Theory Of Morality And Moral Subjectivism

Each person has their own beliefs but they still respect the idea that other people’s views can differ from theirs. Cultures are better preserved with this principle of moral relativism and the root of each culture is everlasting. Since there are no wrong beliefs, each culture can have practices without being criticized for how they act. Moral relativism allows individuals to be diverse in their beliefs and to further express what they believe to be right and wrong.

"Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn"t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts ' are like 'physical ' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. Objectivist theories tend to come in two sorts:"(1)

In philosophy there are many theories that philosophers argue, James Rachels argues the main points of moral relativism, where he describes the differences within cultures. Philosophers attempt to prove their theories to be true, but it can be complicated because if someone proves one premise false of your argument then the entire argument is invalid. There are different types of relativisms that favor moral relativism, such as, personal belief relativism, societal belief relativism, and then there is the cultural beliefs argument. All of these topics of relativism fall into the same category as moral relativism, meaning they all have the same general statement. Which is one cannot declare what is morally right or morally wrong. Moral relativism is the umbrella term and the others are points that can affect it. Moral Relativism claims that there is no objective truth concerning morality, therefore no one can draw a line between what is right or wrong.

An act is only morally right if it does more to improve the overall well being than any other action a person could have done in a circumstance. Which leads to the idea that morality is based on moral calculations.

Moral relativism explains plenty of cultural differences. It allows different societies to have different standards of rightness and validates them. John Ladd details, “[as a result,] whether or not it is right for individuals to act a certain way depends on the society to which they belong” (31). He concludes that there is no absolute or universal moral standard by which all men abide by. By combining the diversity thesis (each culture is different) and the dependency thesis (people act differently dependent of

Morality is a person’s natural distinction between right and wrong and dependent on “doing the right thing for the right reason” (Justice, 111). We can not effectively pass laws that apply equally to each individual if they have a different perspective of right versus wrong.

Normative ethical subjectivism is an ethical stance that attempts to specify circumstances under which an action is morally right or wrong using four distinct arguments that try to prove this claim. Normative ethical subjectivism claims that an act is morally right if, and only if, the person judging the action approves of it. Stemming form this view on ethics a normative ethical theory has been made. An ethical theory is a theory of what is right and wrong. This stance on ethics is the opposite of another ethical stance called methethical antirealism. Methethical antirealism is centered on the idea that because there is no right and wrong actions, just personal preferences there is no such thing as morality. It also states that morals are

An act is only morally right if it does more to improve the overall well being than any other action a person could have done in a circumstance. Which leads to the idea that morality is based on moral calculations.

The basis of morality has been major area of discussion for philosophers for many years. In The Leviathan, Hobbes argues that desire and aversion determine what is good, evil, right or wrong, believing in a subjective self-interest based view on morality. In The Grounding of Metaphysics of Morals, Kant takes a rational approach, arguing that it is reason that plays a role in determining the same, thus having an objective view on morality. In my opinion, Hobbes’ account has greater validity than Kant’s in the fact that I believe it is human passion that dictates morality.

Cultural relativism is the theory where there is no objective truth in morality, and moral truths are determined by different cultures. The primary argument used to justify cultural relativism is the cultural differences argument, which claims different cultures have different moral practices and beliefs, therefore, there is no objective truth in morality (Newton). After reading James Rachels The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, I find his criticisms to be persuasive because the argument made for Cultural Relativism is not sound from a logical point of view. You cannot draw a conclusion about what is factual based on what people believe is factual. Rachels also points out that even though cultures do in fact disagree about moral values,

Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. According to James Rachels, because of moral relativism there typically is no right and wrong and briefly states : “Different cultures have different moral codes.” (Rachels, 18) Various cultures perceive right and wrong differently. What is considered right in one society could be considered wrong in another, but altogether all cultures have some values in common.

Cultural relativism is the way society separates right from wrong within a culture. What we describe as “good” and “bad” is based off of our cultural beliefs. Cultural relativism argues that no culture is better than any other and all their beliefs are equally valid. The way that modern society is has made it possible for almost everything to be justified.

Cultural relativism is the way society separates right from wrong within a culture. What we describe as “good” and “bad” is based off of our cultural beliefs. No culture is better than any other and all their beliefs are equally valid. The way that modern society is has made it possible for almost everything to be justified.

At eighteenth century, the cost of increasing development of capitalism is anomie: people chasing material life insanely even sacrifice others’ benefits. Because of this, Adam Smith, a successful philosopher and economist, released that the original morality principle was not suitable for that society anymore, and it needed to build another new theory system to suit the developing society. He wrote two masterpieces that proposed his ideas: The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which discusses the human development by analysing the human emotion, and The Wealth of Nations, which summarises the development of capitalism and it is also a foundation for today’s economy. This essay will analyse the self-interest, plays as a motivator role in morality and economy field, and benefits the development in that society. Moreover, will suggest some limitations of Smith’s idea.

Referring to morality from an individual point of view, each person has strong beliefs about what is wrong and what is right. Moreover, morals differ from person to person and may be due to difference in culture. Morality also results from basic human emotions i.e. love, hate, honesty, greed, sins etc (Psychology Today).