An Analysis of the Arguments for Subjectivism and the Definition of Morality Essay
Moral standards are in eye of the beholder. Different views on moral standards lead us to know whether something is right or wrong. There is the divine command theory, which states that God is the one who tells us what is right and what is wrong. God's commands (or commandments) are our source of religious morality. This theory only holds true if your are a beleiver in a devine being. If you are an atheist this morality theory will not apply. Natural Law is another means of finding a moral standard. This standard is based on the presumption that everything has a built in purpose. As long as we follow our natural purpose, we will lead a morally healthy life. Some potential problems are How do we find out what our purpose is, and is everything that is natural really good? A third theory of moral standards is that of cultural relativism. To determine the morality of an action or thought, you would have to refer to the beliefs of that particular culture this would provide you with an objective truth. Since different cultures have different moral codes, there can be no objective truth. The basis of this essay is to present arguments for subjectivism, which is another means of defining morality. Subjectivism says that it is impossible to prove what is right and wrong because morality is a function of your personal beliefs. There are two forms of subjectivism emotivism and simple subjectivism. Emotivism is that moral claims are expressions of our own personal beliefs. Simple subjectivism states that when a person states whether or not something is right, she is simply stating that she approves or disapproves. One can argue the validity of subjectivism using Natural Law. Natural law describes how something is and the way that it functions. The law of gravity for example, states that what goes up must come down. This law, like all natural law, cannot be violated. Moral...
Comments
Post a Comment