Essay Concerning The Subjectivity Of Morality Analysis

Superior Essays
Essay Concerning the Subjectivity of Morality The debate of whether morality is subjective or objective has been hotly debated for many centuries since humans often base their actions off of their personal values. Are these personal values inherent across all of mankind? Those who take the side of moral objectivism would say that this statement is true and that we share a deeply rooted ethical code no matter our background. However, moral subjectivists, such as Mackie, would disagree with this statement on the grounds that moral judgements are simply “equivalent to reports of the speaker’s own feeling or attitudes” (Mackie, 779). Mackie uses several theories in his writing to at least to counter the belief of objective morals by using Cultural …show more content…
These objective moral values are essentially, “above and beyond individual subjective values, desires and preferences” (McKitrick, Lecture). Moral Objectivism is also noted for having intrinsic value, that it is in and of itself inherently right and valuable. Many famous historical philosophers (and even many average people) which include “Plato, Kant, and Sidgwick” (Mackie, 781) all believe in the idea of moral objectivism because it plausible to believe that certain “moral obligations” exist. For example, a substantial number of societies may argue that murder is universally wrong and it is a moral obligation to refrain from killing another person. Without Moral Objectivism, it may be implied that no one has any moral obligation to refrain from killing another person since there is no universal code that states killing is inherently wrong. Additionally, if objective morals did exist, it would be in the assumption that there even is a definite “right or wrong” for how we should act, think, or behave.
In Mackie’s writing, “Subjectivism, Relativism, and Skepticism,” he argues against Moral Objectivism by asking “whether there is any objective requirement to do what is just and to refrain from what is unjust” (Mackie, 779). He begins his argument by considering the view of “moral skepticism,” which essentially
…show more content…
The first two premises already assume that all moral codes are categorical imperatives, which has not been proven itself. If each society is following a truly different moral code, it would have been up to that culture’s preference of right and wrong rather than a universal rule they are obligated to carry out. Mackie himself even argues against the validity of any moral code being a categorical imperative on how plausible this case could really be. The argument above assumes in itself that “moral codes express different perceptions of objective values, most of them seriously inadequate and badly distorted” (McKitrick, Lecture). The plausibility that some cultures have “badly distorted” views of what is universally right and wrong is not only offensive, but highly unlikely. It is offensive on the grounds that it would inherently assume that some cultures are more morally aware of objective rights and wrongs than others, maybe implying these cultures are less civilized than those who follow non-distorted versions of universal moral

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    That is because people judge some things as right or wrong not because of their ideals but rather on intuition or common moral sense. (177) This demonstrates that cultures’ moral judgment is found at many times to be wrong allowing for moral progress and the acceptance that morality does have objectively true…

    • 550 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He notes how any society will have certain standards ingrained within its members and that these ingrained morals cannot simply just be forced aside when confronted with a separate society with differing morals. (Williams, 21) Rachels’ relativism argument and Williams’ counter argument are examples of philosophies without a universal moral truth and an argument that debases it. The case of Rachels’ relativism is a little strange in that, while the theory claims to be spreading tolerance of other cultures, the lack of a universal standard to base the moral judgements upon brings up the question of how one would judge their own moral standards. This is especially potent in cases where a culture permits acts such as conquest and genocide-acts that obviously will bring harm to others. The Nazi regime is a prime example of this.…

    • 1298 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    The Cultural Differences argument postulates that different cultures have different moral codes. Hence right and wrong is only a matter of opinions, and opinions vary from culture to culture. However, James Rachel points out the invalidity of the argument - the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Disagreements between two different beliefs does not necessarily mean there is no objective truth in the matter, such…

    • 1886 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The debunker claims that since evolution selects for fitness rather than moral truth, we cannot trust our moral beliefs to be objective, and that we must require a Good Reason to back up all our moral beliefs. This not only knocks out moral realism, or at least leaves it crippled and ineffective, but also leads down the road to pure…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    An argument for moral relativism would be that most objective truths can be presented based on reliable decision procedures. However, there is no decision procedure that is able to show the objective truths or falsities of moral beliefs and judgements. I do believe that this is a fair argument because it is considerably harder to prove and explain a truth about a moral belief than it is to prove say a mathematic objective truth. Since there are persistent disagreements regarding values and norms, it implies that moral beliefs are strictly opinions or attitudes created by an individual or a society and therefore cannot be considered objectively true or false. If you were to believe in moral objectivism it would suggest that you are incompatible with tolerance and open mindedness.…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    However, it holds morality itself accountable for its worldwide inconsistencies and intangibility. Rachels and others may argue against it and they’re points are valid but it remains unfitting to judge the morality of one culture using the framework of…

    • 1231 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Ethical Relativism and Moral Disagreement Moral disagreement does not gives us reason to believe that ethical relativism is the correct metaethical theory. I defend this position by arguing that ethical relativism has several discrepancies and contradictions that undermined the idea that individuals, or societies define what morality is, based solely upon preference. The main downfalls of ethical relativism are that it makes moral mistakes “incapable” of happening, all morals are equal, you can never be unsure of yourself or your society, there can never be positive moral change, and there is an inability to allow true moral disagreement to exist. Ethical revivalism can be broken down into two parts, there is cultural relativism and ethical…

    • 1010 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If one culture is right in one thing than doesn’t that mean that other cultures are wrong? No, of course that doesn’t mean that. Moreover the idea of Moral Subjectivism states the view that rightness/wrongness of an action is determined by what an individual believe about rightness/wrongness for an action. If you don’t believe in something, don’t participate in that thing. Determining what is right or wrong is not going to be the same for every person.…

    • 1526 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    14292768 Word Count: 1070 Error Theory Versus the World Among many relevant philosophical theories are objectivism, relativism, and nihilism. Unlike the other two theories, nihilism states that no moral claims are true. In support of this theory, nihilism strongly depends on error theory to back up its claims. Error theory states that moral claims are simply a means to describing the moral features of everything going on around the world; however, the theory also claims that there are no moral features in the world, which in turn means that no moral claims can be completely true. Error theory has very strong claims, a distinct difference than other theories, and is also a very legitimate theory with strong support behind it.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Which Pojamn rules as impossible through a subjective lens, then Pojman posits that conventionalism cannot possibly work to resolve cross-cultural issue through the lens of conventionalism (Fieser 49). He postulates that there is a better suited ethical theory. Which he affirms is moral objectivism, the view that there exists as least one moral principle that all societies and cultures can adhere to. Pojman attempts to prove that there is a universally valid moral principle that is binding on all rational agents and he posits that if an individual does not adhere to this principle, this individual is stupid and…

    • 722 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays