Subjective relativism is the moral perspective implying that if an individual approves of an action, it is then directed to be moral. For example, an individual can say “X is right,” and someone else can assert that “X is wrong”. When applying subjective relativism to the situation, it justifies that action X is both right and wrong. Suggesting that it can be right for a particular person but wrong for another. Thus, when deciphering whether something is moral or not, it is correlated to individual’s approval (Vaughn 21).
Consequently, there are two implications belonging to subjective relativism. Which are moral infallibility and that there are no moral disagreements (Vaughn 21). Moral infallibility proposes that everyone is inherently perfect …show more content…
Maria believes that it impolite to not participate, therefore, he should push the birthday boy into the cake. On the other hand, Marvin finds the proposition to be rude, so he chooses to refuse to push the boy into the cake (Escobedo 2017). On the behalf of Maria, she believes that pushing the boy into the cake is right, rather than not because that would be foul. However, Marvin believes that not pushing the boy into the cake is the right thing, because doing so would be wrong. When the first implication is applied to the situation, it results in both parties being correct with their preference. This is because proceeding to push the boy into the cake is correct for Maria but would be considered wrong for Marvin. In addition, not pushing the boy is the correct approach for Marvin, however, not doing so would be wrong for Maria. In attempt to solve the conflict, the second implication is applied. Considering that they are both correct, there would be no disagreement. Therefore, the issue could not be resolved because Marvin and Maria are enable to disagree with one another. This leads to Marvin not pushing the birthday boy into the cake, as well as not pushing him. The contradiction then appears in the previous statement and does not make sense in the real
Consequently, there are two implications belonging to subjective relativism. Which are moral infallibility and that there are no moral disagreements (Vaughn 21). Moral infallibility proposes that everyone is inherently perfect …show more content…
Maria believes that it impolite to not participate, therefore, he should push the birthday boy into the cake. On the other hand, Marvin finds the proposition to be rude, so he chooses to refuse to push the boy into the cake (Escobedo 2017). On the behalf of Maria, she believes that pushing the boy into the cake is right, rather than not because that would be foul. However, Marvin believes that not pushing the boy into the cake is the right thing, because doing so would be wrong. When the first implication is applied to the situation, it results in both parties being correct with their preference. This is because proceeding to push the boy into the cake is correct for Maria but would be considered wrong for Marvin. In addition, not pushing the boy is the correct approach for Marvin, however, not doing so would be wrong for Maria. In attempt to solve the conflict, the second implication is applied. Considering that they are both correct, there would be no disagreement. Therefore, the issue could not be resolved because Marvin and Maria are enable to disagree with one another. This leads to Marvin not pushing the birthday boy into the cake, as well as not pushing him. The contradiction then appears in the previous statement and does not make sense in the real