NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Moral standards are in eye of the beholder. Different views on moral standards lead us to know whether something is right or wrong. There is the divine command theory, which states that God is the one who tells us what is right and what is wrong. God's commands (or commandments) are our source of religious morality.
This theory only holds true if your are a beleive in a devine being. If you are an atheist this morality theory will not apply. Natural Law is another means of finding a moral standard. This standard is based on the presumption that everything has a built in purpose. As long as we follow our natural purpose, we will lead a morally healthy life. Some potential problems are: How do we find out what our purpose is, and is everything that is natural really good?
A third theory of moral standards is that of cultural relativism. To determine the morality of an action or thought, you would have to refer to the beliefs of that particular culture; this would provide you with an objective truth. Since different cultures have different moral codes, there can be no objective truth. The basis of this essay is to present arguments for subjectivism, which is another means of defining morality.
Subjectivism says that it is impossible to prove what is right and wrong because morality is a function of your personal beliefs. There are two forms of subjectivism: eroticism and simple subjectivism. Emotivism is that moral claims are expressions of our own personal beliefs. Simple subjectivism states that when a person states whether or not something is right, s / he is simply stating that s / he approves or disapproves. One can argue the validity of subjectivism using Natural Law. Natural law describes how something is and the way that it functions.
The law of gravity for example, states that what goes up must come down. This law, like all natural law, cannot be violated. Moral laws on the other hand state what should be done, not what will be done. This is why a person can violate a moral law, but cannot violate a natural law. The moral law "Thou shalt not commit adultery" exists, but only for some. If person "X" should commit adultery because they don't see it as a bad thing, then they are only expressing their opinion.
Person "X's" neighbor may feel that adultery is the worst crime a person can commit so for them adultery is wrong. Both person "X" and her / his statements are correct, but only for the individual. This is the basis of subjectivism. The biggest fault associated with subjectivism is that it implies that everyone is morally infallible. Provided that an individual believes that what they are doing is right, than they cannot do anything wrong. All actions and beliefs under subjectivism are justifiable.
If this were true, then people like Adolf Hitler, Jeffery Dahlmer and Charles Manson would all have been right in what they did because they believed that what they did was right. For Hitler, Dahlmer and Manson murdering innocent people was right for them so they did. To the vast majority, the murders that they committed were so heinous, unthinkable and wrong, but who are we to say that? Although we would not commit murder because it is morally wrong to us, we can not extend that belief to others. This leads into the assumption that there are no proofs in ethics.
Proofs are impossible because morality is subjective, not objective. There is no universal standard by which one can say what is right or wrong. Under subjectivism, we cannot even argue with people of opposing views because their should be no disagreements since we are all entitled to our own beliefs and morality. But is this a correct assumption? Although it is true that each person is correct in his or her own moral beliefs, arguments should still be had.
Through the arguments each side can understand where the other is coming from, even though there is no requirement that on side be truer than the other is. Subjectivism is the better method of deciding morality because morality cannot be objective. The argument against subjectivism insinuates that morality must be objective. It states that subjectivism is wrong because it would allow all actions to be performed no matter what the consequences will be, because someone believes it is right. Who is to decide what is right and wrong though? We cannot follow divine law as a theory because not all people believe in God.
Natural Law theory cannot be used because how do humans discover what their function in the world is? Cultural relativism is a better way to decide moral standards, but it is hard to define what a particular culture is. Following subjectivism allows an individual to decide how s / he feels, something that all mentally stable humans can do. Bibliography:
Free research essays on topics related to: moral standards, natural law, commit adultery, cultural relativism, personal beliefs
Research essay sample on Commit Adultery Cultural Relativism
