Philosophy 120 Ethics Discussion For James Rachels "Elements of Moral Philosophy" CH 3

Forum assignment for Module 3: Subjectivism

Question assignment: All students do the same primary question.

Primary post: (Due on/before Wed):
Write at least three paragraphs regarding subjectivism. You should include:

 Paragraph 1: Write down two moral claims. Try to make them specific (rather than
very general like "killing is wrong." so that students do not repeat each other).
Morally, I believe that the United States’ justice and prison system is both archaic and
unjust for low-level criminals (petty drug offenses, probation violations); moreover,
unfair to the American taxpayer who help house these criminal (It costs a taxpayer
approximately $100 a day per inmate). Further, petty offenders (possession, etc.) are
housed along with rapists and murderers, instead of being rehabilitated and given the
tools to reenter society. Coupled with this moral claim is the fact that our system would
rather continue pursuing justice through crime control rather than using due process- a
constitutional right given to every American citizen through the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution.
 Paragraph 2: Do a translation of these claims to simple subjectivism and then to

emotivism. For example, under simple subjectivism a phrase like “Killing animals for fur is
wrong.” translates to “I disapprove of killing animals for fur.”.
The example used in the text references gays and homosexuality, and how the biological
lifestyle of homosexuals is viewed by certain members of our society. Further, the term
“unnatural” is loosely used in describing homosexuality, and how some perceive gay
men as dangerous and a prime candidate at being a pedophile, or child molester. First,
gay men are predominately passive human beings, and pedophiles are usually
heterosexual men who have suffered the same unfortunate criminal act on themselves
when they were a child. There is a saying I love to quote: “If you want to blame
someone for all the homosexuals in the world, blame the parents- they are the ones
having gay babies”; therefore, as with heterosexuality, a person’s sexual preference is
biological; it’s always been there and is not a choice. Certain circles in society see it as a
criminal act, or a choice made to defy the social norm, when it is not. The same goes for
low-level offenders, with whom society could benefit from if the rules were different
and they were rehabilitated instead of incarcerated; however, socialites who snub gays
for choosing their lifestyle, snub them as deadbeats, if not the same as those in prison
for rape and murder. The need for these people to reenter society is obsolete. If we
look at other nations, especially ones that have developed nicely both economically and
socially, then we can learn that the summation of benefits for rehabilitation is mutual
and positive. In Norway, which is a lot smaller than the U.S. in size and population, the
percentage of crime and recidivism is the lowest in the world; about 6%. Further, low-
level criminals are rehabilitated and housed in dorm like cells rather than concrete and
bars. The motto is “restorative justice, which aims to repair the caused by crime rather
than punish people. The system focuses on rehabilitating prisoners” (Sterbenz). Like the
perception of gays, these low-level criminals are being punished due to Ethical
Subjectivism, because we have based these moral opinions on feelings. By advocating
crime control, the use of our current justice system is greatly influenced; thus, proving
Emotivism. So, is there a way to turn these perceptions around?
 Paragraph 3: Explain whether you agree or disagree with the theory of subjectivism.
If you agree you should address Rachels’ criticisms. Explain why you think Rachels
is wrong. If you disagree you should try to give the reasoning against subjectivism in
your own words. You can use Rachels' arguments if you wish, but you should
explain them in your own terms and give your own examples if possible.
Looking at the issue overall, I can agree with the theory of subjectivism. Unfortunate
as it is truthful, we harshly judge those who fail to fit the norm- so, what is the
norm? For me, normality is what society perceives and expects how one should
behave, and it’s a biased perception; moreover, the expectation of it is selfish. I’m
gay so does that make me a criminal of morality or the social norm? Does it make
me less than you? Ethical Subjectivism would say “yes” because simple subjectivism
believes there is no wrong or right, nor can it account for moral disagreement. And,
emotivism believes that our feelings are influenced. The history of the United States
is based on ethical subjectivism. In a society influenced by strong Christian beliefs
and hardened Anglo-Saxon upbringings, ethical subjectivism would be accountable
for the treatment of slaves and women, and today for the treatment of low-level
criminals and how we operate our judicial system.
Response Post: (Due on/before Sat)

You have a choice: You can choose one of the following to do.
1. Say how you would response to the person in the student's example to show that she/he
is wrong. Depending on what the dialogue is, this might by trying to show that the character
is wrong about something she/he has done, or plans to do, or simply wrong about something
she/he is trying to justify. Describe in detail what kind of evidence that could theoretically
be marshaled to support your claim that this person is wrong.
2. Look at: Write two paragraphs discussing the distinction between "Proving an opinion is
correct" and "Persuading somebody to accept your proof." Rachels discusses this in his
book. One paragraph could be explaining the difference and the other could be giving an
example either from real life or made up of somebody making this mistake and you
explaining why it is in error (or clearly defending it against Rachels' view if you do not
believe that it is in error). Maybe you can come up with an example of this that you have
seen in your own life.
3. Do the same as above but discuss the mistake that Rachels says that people make when
they express the idea that there are only two possibilities. That "Either moral facts in the
same way that trees and spoons exist" or "...that our values are nothing more than the
expression of subjective feelings." Rachels says that this is false dichotomy because there is
a third possibility: "Moral truths can be truths of reason; that is a moral judgment is true if it
is backed by better reasons than alternatives." The page number in the text will vary
depending on your edition but this should be in most editions.
You only need to do 1, 2, or 3. Choose one. You do not need to do all three.

Philosophy 120 Ethics Discussion For James Rachels "Elements of Moral Philosophy" CH 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philosophy 120 Ethics Discussion For James Rachels "Elements of Moral Philosophy" CH 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philosophy 120 Ethics Discussion For James Rachels "Elements of Moral Philosophy" CH 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forum assignment for Module 3: Subjectivism

Write at least three paragraphs regarding subjectivism. You should include:

 Paragraph 2: Do a translation of these claims to simple subjectivism and then to

Response Post: (Due on/before Sat)

You might also like