If you used Ethical Subjectivism in the case study involving Happy Trails, you would never come to a conclusion. Smokers and non-smokers have such different feelings about smoking in the facility. It is next to impossible to make everyone happy. Each individual feels that they have rights and no matter which direction you went, someone's rights would be compromised. The non-smokers will not be happy unless there is no smoking anywhere except maybe in their rooms as long as they don't breathe it in. The smokers will not be happy unless they can smoke wherever they want. Ethical Subjectivism suggests that there is no one wrong. Technically, I don't feel anyone is wrong. However, if you weigh the feelings, I have to side with the non-smokers. The right to breathe fresh, healthy air far outweighs a smoker's right to smoke, which harms everyone around.
In my discussion group, the issue of smoking and the smoking ban has been a hot issue. It seems that the majority agree that there should be some designated area assigned for smokers. I feel that this would probably make everyone happy; as long as it's in an area that non-smokers can easily stay clear of.
With Simple Subjectivism, disagreement does not happen. If I were to disapprove of abortion and you were to approve of it, Simple Subjectivism says that I agree that you approve and you agree that I disapprove. But in reality, we do disagree. We disagree about abortion being right or wrong. Therefore, disagreement is another problem with the Simple Subjectivism of Ethical Subjectivism.