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
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