Emotivism vs. Individual Moral Subjectivism

This paper looks into many different attributes and aspects of ethical egoism. It also  analyzes, discusses and evaluates ethical egoism according to the principals of normatic theories and beliefs.

Individual moral subjectivism is a philosophical tenet that touches upon primary subjective experience as an important and fundamental law or measure.  In this theory, there is a restriction of knowledge to a sensory state or self-consciousness. On the other hand, emotivism is a meta-ethical view, which suggests that emotional attitudes express ethical sentences, but cannot in any way express propositions. Emotivism is class or moral judgments based on emotional attitudes and not statements of facts in this context.

There are two objections in this case. The first objection states if one makes a moral judgment that he or she can never be wrong. In this way, there can never be an intentional mistake on whether the mistake has been approved or disapproved. Another objection that disagrees with this ethics states that if one thinks that what they say is wrong, no one can state otherwise. It is important to note that emotivism makes an effort to completely stay out or avoid two objectives. A big question is why emotivism avoids these objections against subjectivism. The main reason why they avoid these objections is because one often states facts in the process of making a claim about a certain thing. It is also important to note that emotions cannot be right or wrong, while facts can be such, thus, the moral language in this case is used to express an attitude and behavior. In the case of emotivism, the reason may influence behavior as long as there is a moral language object or subject.

In my view, subjectivism is superior to emotivism. This is because subjectivism deals with real facts, while emotivism deals with emotional attitudes that cannot correctly measure the moral value of something.

Glaucon’s Arguments for Physiological Egoism

Glaucon believed that human beings do not have the guts or courage to act unjustly. In this case, humans pay for consequences, when they become unjust. He suggests that no human being can willingly become unjust unless it is under compulsion. This means that justice cannot be justified as a person personal good, but can be classified as a choice. The big question is ”what common argument can support psychological egoism?’’. Well, there are many ideas that can support this argument. In the book “Elements of moral philosophy” by James Rachel’s, the author suggests a few arguments that can be used to justify psychological egoism.

One of the ideas to support this argument is that conscious decisions are made through actions. This simply means that nobody needs to twist a person’s arm in order to make them or influence them to take a certain action. Sometimes actions are influenced by obligation. This does not mean in the end that there will be a good feeling about the action.

 Another idea or argument that supports psychological egoism according to Rachel is that the reason, why humans help others is psychological egoism. However, many critics do not agree with this fact. Most of them suggest that this is a conflict of interests.

According to Rachel, as far as there are ideas that support the argument of psychological egoism, there are also arguments that refute the idea. One of these ideas is that human beings often act selfishly. This is because human self-interest can be presumptuous. However, the confusion arises between his pursuit of pleasure and self-interested actions in this background. It is significant to note that for a human-being doing something that they love most of all is not in theory the best interest. These things can harm and shorten the lifespan of human beings.

It is evident that psychological egoism is bought by many people, because they think that it is indestructible and believable. It also easily explains human behavior in a simple language. However, Rachel insists that there is a deep downfall in psychological egoism. In this statement Rachel reaffirms that the easiest way for humans to prove their actions is through the power of controlling assumptions. This power enables human-beings to get engaged in actions, which are motivated by selfishness or self-interest.

Many people still believe in the psychological egoism theory, which has steered so many debates. They believe that ethical egoism is an idea, which should be pursuit by each person, as they pursue their self-interests. They should help themselves and not waste time helping other people.

In conclusion, Glaucan suggests that in order to know what and who a person really is, it is important for them to find out that suffering wrong is undesirable and doing wrong is desirable. However, if humans do not suffer wrong, they form a compact by compromising with others. Glaucan insists that regardless of being just or unjust humans can do everything they want without a fear of being caught. Additionally, Rachel believes that an ethical egoist acts driven by his or her self-interests and has no obligation to tell others about his or her actions. In this case, ethical egoist only acts out of his own self-interests and not interests of others. This simply means that ethical egoism is not related or cannot be connected in any way with the ethical theory. This is because ethical egoism does not qualify as a theory.

Principals of Normative Ethics or Theory

It is important to note that most if not all normative theories use different normative principals in the process of assessing and reviewing moral responsibilities, which is very essential in the evaluation of the same in this context.

The principal of ends is a principal that acts in order to encourage humans to treat others as an end in them and not as a mere means to an end.

The principle of autonomy is a principal, which advocates that human-beings should regard themselves as makers of the universe and they are ideal people to legislate the very same universal principals.

The principal of utility is a principal that disapproves or approves whether human actions diminish or increase if the party interested is happy. It can be grouped in two aspects. The Act of utilitarianism states that an action performed by a human can only be right, if the results of the same are good and if it is the only alternative available. The rule of utilitarianism is a right act performed by a member adhering to the set rules. It is important to note that a human-being can not at any time act on both principals.

The principal of harm is a principal, which is justified by the community or the society and helps to control the behavior of a person to prevent him or her from causing injury to other people.

The principal of consequences is a principal, which assesses consequences. According to this principal, happiness is the most important fact. It states that the best or right actions are actions that do not produce bad results over good, but produce the greatest good over bad.

The principal of justice is a principal founded on justice and not subject to any bargains or social interests.

The principle of honesty is a principal that aims at preventing people from a deception. Every person needs to say truth to others and act according to this principle.

It is evident that ethical egoism has fundamental consideration on viable normative theories. In this case, most if not all moral decisions are made on the basis of considerations of ethical egoism. This moral judgment accurately expresses normative principals. These principals are very important for mankind decisions, which are based on ethical egoism. This is because these principals give directions and guidelines.

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism is a very important view that there is no culture superior to other cultures. All cultures are politically, morally and lawfully based. However, depending on the cultural environment, the truth is very relevant to create notions of equality. These notions are not only related to cultural relativism, but also help to hold the ground that all cultures and religions are political, ethical, religious, and aesthetic believes that make up cultural identities. However, this depends on social constructs, that the truth is not based on objective standards, wrongs, and rights, which are not based on specific and particular situations.

Many critics have argued that cultural relativism is a misguided movement, which does not take into consideration tolerance and pluralism. Thus, regardless of all the criticism, as long as humans do not hurt other humans, anything goes. Does this mean that humans can accept anything as long as it does not harm other persons? Critics have suggested that this norm or theory encourages springing up of many vices, such as pornography and immorality. Relativists believe that all views based on culture are valid. Does this mean that relativism is contradictory? In many ways this theory is contradictory. However, the truth is always contradictory. Every person has his or her own version of the truth, but this does not mean that the truth is wrong.

When Jack advocates that many people from different cultures has been still arguing about accepted moral practices, he is right. This fact has not been established yet. However, if people from a particular culture believe that moral practices are acceptable, then these practices are acceptable by that particular cultural group. It becomes true in that particular cultural group and as a result right. It is important to note that relativists believe that there is nothing such as an ‘’absolute truth’’ but it can be an absolute statement, which they suppose is true. This means that the statement becomes false, but an absolute truth. This simply means that every cultural group has its own versions, which are believed to be true. It may sound wrong to other cultures, but remains true to a particular culture. The key to understanding this concept is that cultural relativism can only be judged to a specific or a specified society. There does not exist a right and wrong that can be judged in this context. Jack’s argument can be both a valid deductive argument and a cognitive deductive argument. All these premises are true. This is because cultural relativism can only be judged by a specific, particular or specified society.

Conclusion

Ethical egoism is a very controversial topic that draws suggestions and critics of people in all over the world. This essay has discussed and explained the most controversial aspects of it. The essay has not only discussed both controversial aspects and socially acceptable standards plus the principals related to the same.