"Normative ethical subjectivism" and the four arguments aganist it with examples
Normative ethical subjectivism is an ethical stance that attempts to specify circumstances under which an action is morally right or wrong using four distinct arguments that try to prove this claim. Normative ethical subjectivism claims that an act is morally right if, and only if, the person judging the action approves of it. Stemming form this view on ethics a normative ethical theory has been made. An ethical theory is a theory of what is right and wrong. This stance on ethics is the opposite of another ethical stance called methethical antirealism. Methethical antirealism is centered on the idea that because there is no right and wrong actions, just personal preferences there is no such thing as morality. It also states that morals are just a personal preference. Normative ethical subjectivism makes its claim in four different arguments witch are democracy, tolerance, disagreement and atheism.
The democracy argument makes the premise that if everyone has an equal right to have and voice moral opinions then everyone's moral opinions are equally plausible. The next premise states that everyone does have an equal right to have and voice moral opinions. These two premises lead to the conclusion that everyone's moral opinions are equally plausible. The first premise of the argument creates a problem because not everyone's moral opinions are equally valid and plausible. I have lots of opinions like the location of LSU, how far away the moon is and, the speed limit on College Drive. My opinion is LSU is located in Arizona, the moon is 100 miles away and the speed limit on College Drive is 75 miles per hour. My opinions are all incorrect showing that the plausibility of an opinion really has nothing to do with one's right to hold it. Having a right to an opinion is one thing, the truth of that opinion quite another. This undermines the first premise of the argument causing me to reject a crucial part of the democracy argument. Consequently making the argument for
The democracy argument makes the premise that if everyone has an equal right to have and voice moral opinions then everyone's moral opinions are equally plausible. The next premise states that everyone does have an equal right to have and voice moral opinions. These two premises lead to the conclusion that everyone's moral opinions are equally plausible. The first premise of the argument creates a problem because not everyone's moral opinions are equally valid and plausible. I have lots of opinions like the location of LSU, how far away the moon is and, the speed limit on College Drive. My opinion is LSU is located in Arizona, the moon is 100 miles away and the speed limit on College Drive is 75 miles per hour. My opinions are all incorrect showing that the plausibility of an opinion really has nothing to do with one's right to hold it. Having a right to an opinion is one thing, the truth of that opinion quite another. This undermines the first premise of the argument causing me to reject a crucial part of the democracy argument. Consequently making the argument for
Cited: "Tolerance." The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary. Revised and Expanded edition 1981.