Simple Subjectivism vs. Emotivism

There are explicit differences amongst emotivism and simple subjectivism. An important question arises when comparing both theories; does emotivism succeed in avoiding the objections to which simple subjectivism falls short? This paper will compare and contrast both theories, as well as identify any short comings of simple subjectivism, to which emotivism may succeed in answering.
First and for most, simple subjectivism contends that when individuals make moral statements, they are just reflecting their subjective feelings pertaining to the aroused issue. Furthermore, a simple subjectivist would contend that what we say regarding morality is just a descriptive expression of our emotions with regards to the issue; from this viewpoint, there are no facts regarding morality, hence morality is not objective, it is in the eye of the beholder.
For example, a simple subjectivist would contend that when Mr. Banana says eating fruits is immoral, he is just stating his attitude; he’s merely saying that he, Mr. Banana, rejects the idea of eating fruit. In opposition to that of Mr. Banana, Mrs. GreenPepper believes that eating fruit is not immoral. Mr. GreenPepper is also just stating her attitude. A simple subjectivist would not see these two different viewpoints as disagreeing with one another, rather, both parties agree to disagree! Both parties are right with regards to how one feels; thus both statements are true. Simple subjectivism denies that moral disagreements exist.
However, there are objections when it comes to simple subjectivisms notion of moral claims. Rachels’, identifies two fallacies pertaining to simple subjectivism; it cannot account for individuals fallibility, and the most obvious, it doesn’t account for moral disagreements. Rachels’ assumes that individuals can be wrong with their moral judgments and that moral disagreements do exist. Further on in the paper, it will be discussed if emotivism solves the problems to which simple subjectivism fell