Allen
Objectivity Rob in Ethics
The topic of ethics is one of the most practical and controversial areas of philosophy. When examined at first, it seems that the only way ethics can operate and be understood is subjectively, because everyone has different opinions about what is right and wrong. Once studied though, the only way ethics could thrive and exist as a legitimate topic in the world of philosophy is if it were objective. If subjectivity in ethics was true, every action deemed "good" or moral would indeed become moral in the eyes of the person performing the action. In the case of simple ethical subjectivism (or SES), this is true in that moral judgments are true if they show the person's true feelings or sentiments about the topic being weighed on. If this was indeed the case, it would be impossible to distinguish between moral and immoral actions and ethics as a topic of study and debate would not continue very far past the assumption that right and wrong can be determined by anyone. So, no one could be wrong in their moral judgments and acting immorally would be impossible, since one could say anything they do is moral. Those who believe in simple ethical subjectivism also seem to think that humans are morally infallible, since none of their actions could be ethically wrong. Since humans are not God, and therefore subject to moral infallibility, then this argument for simple ethical subjectivism is flawed because it goes with the assumption of a false notion. The reasons listed above supporting SES try to refute the idea that it is possible for actions to be right and wrong, which does not make sense because if these ideas held true, the
concept of right and wrong would be thrown out the window and any action would be permissible. A more plausible argument for ethical subjectivism moral is relativism (or MR). Moral relativism claims that "moral judgments are true only insofar as they accurately represent the current cultural norms and practices of society." Actions are labeled as right or wrong based on the feelings and sentiments of a culture or society at that time, and no universally bound moral values exist. The problem with this argument is that it operates just like SES except on a much more broad scope. Again, just because a culture says something is right or wrong does not actually make it true. Also, moral conflict between societies or cultures could not be resolved, since what is right for one culture could be wrong for another. A relevant example of this is the current U.S. foreign policy with Iraq. We as a nation believe in freedom and democracy as morally right ideas. Iraq, and the Middle Eastern culture, holds conflicting moral judgments which have existed for thousands of years. Based on MR, the situation could never be resolved since American culture would be right in saying their actions are morally right to bring freedom to the Middle East because that is what our culture believes is right. Those who go against the majority in terms of moral judgments would have to be wrong, because the values their society determines are morally just are indeed moral values. Ethical objectivism is the only meta-ethical concept that could hold true if we as humans believe that our actions are right and wrong. Ethical subjectivism seems to deny the conscious that most of us tend to use when making ethical decisions. Believing in subjectivism also shrugs off responsibility in our actions since we don't need to be responsible and do the right thing; rather we can label our immoral actions as moral even though we know deep down that these actions are wrong.