SUBJECTIVISM

Subjectivism teaches that there are no objective moral truths out there; there are no objective moral facts. Therefore, 'murder is wrong' can't be objectively true. Many forms of subjectivism go a bit further and teach that moral statements describe how the speaker feels about a particular ethical issue. Moral statements are just factual statements about the attitude the speaker holds on a particular issue, so if I say "Lying is wrong", all I'm doing is telling you that I disapprove of telling lies. Some forms of subjectivism generalize this idea to come up with: Moral statements are just factual statements about the attitude normal human beings hold on a particular issue and this may ultimately lead us to the conclusion about moral truths that “Moral judgments are dependent on the feelings and attitudes of the persons who think about such things.
Emotivism, on the other hand, is like subjectivism in the sense that it teaches that there are no objective moral facts, and that therefore 'murder is wrong' can't be objectively true but Emotivists teach that moral statements are meaningless. This means that the first half of the statement 'it was wrong to murder Fred' adds nothing to the non-moral information that Fred has been murdered. Moral statements only express the speaker's feelings about the issue. Later emotivists added this idea to Emotivism: By expressing the speaker's feelings about a moral issue moral statements may influence another person's thoughts and conduct.
People can have disagreements on just about any subject. But in ethics, disagreements are often emotionally charged or impossible to settle, even when all of the available evidence is considered. Take abortion, for example; In particular, consider cases where abortion is purely elective (not medically necessary) and the pregnancy was not due to unusual or tragic circumstances (i.e. not due to rape, incest); Is abortion in such cases morally wrong? Many people feel very strongly that it is,