Ethical Subjectivism Flaws

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

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

I. Thesis Statement The theory of ethical relativism maintains the belief that morality is relative to the norm of individual and/or culture. If the truth of moral principles is relative to cultures, the view of conventional relativism is true. If the truth of moral principles is relative to individuals, the view of subjective relativism is true. II.

Animals are bread forcibly, then nourished with specific intent of managing fat content, meat flavor, and healthiness, each of which discounts the Utilitarian claim that nature makes our carnivorous methods ethically permissible. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, such a claim is in direct contradiction to the Utilitarian tenet that each individual has equal value regardless of identity or stature. Because humans could be sufficiently nourished without the killing of animals, it cannot be argued that the consequence of causing death to an animal is equivalent or less substantial than that of feeding a man.

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.

In this paper, I will strive to analyze and compare the philosophical writings of Regan and Kant in both of their respective fields. This essay will highlight Regan’s views on animal rights and how they, with varying objection, line up with Kant’s views regarding Good Will and the Conformity to Moral Law. In Section 1, I will discuss how Regan refutes the ideal of contractarianism and how Kant disagrees with the universal law. In Section 2, I will discuss how Regan is against any form of animal coercion towards human will due to the inadequacy of avoiding cruelty, and will compare it with Kant’s belief of a categorical imperative…

Essentially, this critique attacks Act Utilitarianism for implying that certain morally-repugnant actions are permissible or even required for the sake of utility maximization. For instance, according to Act Utilitarianism, the sacrifice of an unproductive homeless person would be encouraged if it would increase the utility of others by saving their lives; this action violates Kant's first and second categorical imperatives. Murder or sacrifice breaks the Universalizability principle, as they would not a desirable universal law. Furthermore, the Mere Means Principle would be broken, as the homeless person is being used a means, against his own self-interest, to benefit the welfare of others. Thus, in response to this criticism, Rule Utilitarianism is put forward to allow exceptions in certain situations through the imposition of a higher set of universal laws.

The author states that the idea of the universality of morals is not as complete as it seemed in the last three paragraphs, and explains it in paragraphs 21 – 22.

While the argument can be made that the animals are being treated equally as humans, others assert there is harm towards the animals. One should be concerned with the pros and cons about animals. All evidence considered, rather than harming animals, one needs appreciate and merit the animals.

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

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

To the extent that the morality of desire and emotivism hold true, objectivism finds no traction in ethics. These doctrines preclude the exclusion of the self in evaluation of questions of morality and ethics. Meno’s crude and self-interested model of virtue complements Unger and MacIntyre’s discussion of subjectivity.

The basic principles of subjectivism illustrate that Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa are considered morally equal. With both living to their own standards and morals. Obviously, this is the point where subjectivism crumbles. Knowing right from wrong cannot be always changing from person to person, the ideas would need

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

This means that there are still going to be “fundamental disagreements” among societies due to the fact that there are different practices under the same moral principle. Which one is acceptable solely depends on which culture you are from and where it is practiced. Although ethical relativism makes valid points that there are no valid universal moral principles but rather moral principles that are relative to culture or an individual’s choice; it also has objections that in which problems arise from this theory. The idea of Subjectivism; which is