Meta-Ethical - Subjectivism

Out of the five meta-ethical views, subjectivism, error theory, non-cognitivism, relativism, and ethical objectivism, I will state and argue that one of these views is best; while the rest should never be used as moral standards. To me ethical objectivism is the most plausible and I favor this one the over the others.

Subjectivism has many problems and should not be used as a moral code. It states that every individual can form his or her own moral truths. It holds, improbably, that the sheer fact that we like something (such as getting drunk and hurting others) would make it good. If someone believed that hurting others is morally right to him or her, then other subjectivist would have to tolerate that person's idea. They wouldn't have to agree with that idea, but they can't say that person is right or wrong. And it tells us to follow our feelings but gives us no guide on how to develop coherent and sensible feelings.

An important key concept of subjectivism is that is creates moral nihilism. This is because the idea that nothing is right or wrong means that, as Dostoevsky said, "everything is permitted." Since no one's personal opinion is any more correct than another's, this means that no one can force their opinions on another person. Indeed no choice that we make represent the truth; our opinions represent our feelings and nothing more. Ultimately there are no moral facts, independent of our feelings, as objectivism claims. Therefore morality is dependent, rather than independent of the individual who is professing a particular moral view point.

Subjectivism can be seen as a branch of anti-realism, in that everyone has their own truth. However no one is correct as truth does not exist. The link with anti-realism is another key idea of subjectivism. Undeniably subjectivism, unlike objectivism, implies there is no need to partake in moral debates. Subjectivists would say this promotes autonomy, tolerance, and emphasizes the importance of individuality, which is surely a good thing.

Cultural relativism holds that every cultural forms their own moral truths for their society to work. An example would be if a society believes in the homicide of infants, cannot be good or bad objectively; instead it's good in a society that approves of it but bad in one that disapproves of it. Cultural relativists see morality as a creation of their culture. They think that societies disagree widely about morality and that we have no clear way to resolve the differences. So the Nazi's could defend their moral code, by stating that this is best for their cultural and other cultural relativist could not argue with them. Same with subjectivism, in that they wouldn't have to agree with them, but they can't say the Nazi's were wrong in what they did. They conclude that there are no objective values. Cultural relativists view themselves as tolerant; they

...