analysis

ethical subjectivism suggests that we are to identify our moral principles by si

mply following our feelings.
on positive note, it allows us to think for ourselves because it implies that we
need not agree with society.
ethicallu, it makes sensefor a theory not to ultimately base morality on what so
ciety feels or dictates.
but subjectivism has plenty of problems it indicates unbelievably, that mere fac
t that we like something would make it good
so just imagine how the theory would assess acts like taking prohibited drugs,
getting intoxicated and bullying others if some persons do like them.
moreover, the theory provides a weak foundation for dealing with topics like sla
very, racism and discrimination.
in subjectivism, these things would be good only if we like them.
ethical subjectivism alsahas has implication that are contrary to what we believ
e about nature of moral judgments.
for instance ethical subjectivism considers it a fact that jack the ripper brut
aly murdered at least five women in london.
but in expressing that his actions were evil, we are said to be not stating a fa
ct about his actions,
ratherwe are merely saying that we have negative feelings toward them.
but this is not the way we understand moral judgments.
we believe that moral judgments we make are not mere ex[ressions of our personal
feeling.
in our sincere moreal judgments, we claim that the stance we choose does present
the "truth".
the theory also implies that each us is infallible so long as we are honestly ex
pressing our respective feelings about moral issues.
but its a fact that we are sometimes wrong in our moral evaluation, so much so t
hat we do want to change our change upon discovering
that we are mistaken. against subjectivism,
we may submit this argument: "if subjectivism is correct then each of us is infa
llible in our moral judgments as long as we are speaking sincerly.
but we are not infallible - we may be mistaken even when we are speaking sincerl
y. therefore, subjectivism cannot be correct".
furthemore, subjectivism cannot for the fact of disagreement in ethics.
supppose john believes that hazing is wrong whil peter maintains it is good. cer
tainly, they have disagreement.
in subjectivism, however, there is no disagreement between them-both of them ar
e correct provided that they are sincere in their
beliefs. that is, john could not disagree that "peter believes that hazing is go
od," conversely, peter could not disagree that "john believes
that hazing is wrong." Subjectivism entails that each should acknowledge the tru
th of what the other is saying. clearly thus, this ethical theoryerrs,
for john and peter disagree about wehter or not hazingis right. we can summarize
out arguement thus:
"when a says x is morally acceptable and b says x is morally unaacceptable, the
y are disagreeing. but if subjectivism is
coreect there would be no disagreement between a and b. therefore, subjectivism
cannot be correct."
definition of ethical subjectivism
another ethical theory which utterly runs contrary to the principle that theres
objectivity in morality is the

ethical subjectivism. basically a meta ethical theory. it is not about what thin
gs are good and what things are bad. it also
does not tell how we should live or what moral norms we should practice. instead
, it is a theory aboout the nature of moral judgments.
though it amits that moral judgements are truth bearers. ethical subjectivism ho
lds that the truth
or falsity of ethical propositions is dependent on the attitudes, feelings or st
andards of a persons or group of persons.
subjectivism obviously contrary to moral realism which claims that morality is a
bout objective facts. it says that moral
judgements simply describe our personal feelings.