This document discusses theories of normative ethics including subjectivism, objectivism, and emotivism. Subjectivism claims that moral judgments are neither true nor false but depend on individual psychology. Objectivism claims moral judgments can be objectively true or false. The document outlines arguments for and against both subjectivism and objectivism. Emotivism, developed by David Hume, claims that moral judgments are emotional expressions of approval or disapproval rather than statements of fact.

1. NORMATIVE ETHICS
Subjectivism, Objectivism, Emotivism

2. Subjectivism and Objectivism
 Any theory which claims that ethical
judgments such as whether stealing is
wrong, are neither true or false, is
subjectivist
 Any theory which claims that ethical
judgments neither true or false but they
are always abut the psychology of the
person who utters them
 Any non-subjectivist theory will be
objectivist

3.  Should moral judgment be subjective or
objective?
 What are the arguments for and against
either?

4. Arguments supporting for
subjectivism
1. All moral statements are subjective.
 Subjective statement are not mere
descriptions of something rather they are
also prescriptions-imperatives—
commands to someone—evaluation—
expression of one own values

5.  For example to tell a child “stealing is worng”
you are essentially saying “don’t steal.” Also I
am expressing my disapproval for stealing. It
does not make sense to ask whether the
statement “don’t steal is wrong?” Or whether
my feeling is right or wrong

6.  2. Sentient beings
 In a world where there are no sentient
beings everything would be inanimate
 Goodness and badness are dependent upon
the feelings, attitudes, and desires of sentient
beings.
 Things are good or bad if sentient beings are
affected by them. Thus what is good or bad
depends on the individual mental constituent
of the person who has certain attitudes
towards these events

7. 3. Egoist argument
 It is useless trying to make others happy
when you personally become unhappy in
the process
 If a course of action led to the well-being
of others and not yours it cannot really be
good

8. Arguments against subjectivism
 1. To accept subjectivism means that we can
never settle any real moral dispute. For
example an action can be both right and
wrong a the same time
 2. The words “good, bad, right and wrong”
must have some standard attributions which
can be applicable to all in every circumstance
 3. It cannot give a justification for doing one’s
duty which often involves acting against one’s
inclination at least for sometime

9. Arguments supporting
Objectivism
1. It provides a theory which corresponds more
closely to the views of common sense about
moral matters.
 There is no difference between moral matters
and factual ones
 Statement have an objective reference
2. There are certain duties that must be
performed whether we want to or not. These are
simply objective facts which exists whether one
chooses to ignore them or not

10. Arguments against Objectivism
 The main challenge here is how do we prove
an action is right or wrong. The objectivist
claim there is no difference in establishing a
moral and scientific claim.
 For example in proving a scientific claim there
must be: (1) the acceptance by both sides of a
common method (experimental method, (2)
willingness of both sides to accept the
judgment of disinterested observers after they
have examined the evidence
 Can both of these two premise be applied to
moral dilemmas

11. Emotivism
 Developed by David Hume (1711-1776)
 Moral judgment are an emotional
expression about an action or person,
hence when people make statements they
are merely asserting their feelings
 Ethical statement are only attitudes
masquerading the facts.
 For the emotivist morality is based on
sentiment rather than fact

12.  Unlike the subjectivist who sees moral
statements reflect how a person feels about a
particular action. Or statements of fact about
the attitude of the person who says them

13.  The subjectivist will say “homosexuality is
wrong” meaning “I disapprove of
homosexuality” as opposed to the emotivist
who will say” Homosexuality, how disgusting!”
(emotions steps in)
 Emotivist therefore is the realm of meta-ethics
where the language of morality becomes
paramount

14. Precursor to emotivism
 1. Intuitionism
 Morality is directly intuited by the person making
moral decisions
 The emotivist went further in saying that moral
language expresses the emotions of a person in
the situation, and says nothing about whether it is
right or wrong
 2. Logical positivism
 Claim that only analytical (definitions), and factual
(empirical) statement are true. To them moral
statements are more than definitions and not
emperical

15. Moral language for the
Emotivist
 1. Expresses emotions
 2. It is imperative
 3. It is persuasive

16. Problems with Emotivism
 1. Emotivist claims that only statements
that are empirically verifiable has
meaning. However this statement itself is
not one that is empirically proven. A valid
reason hasn’t been posited at limiting
meaningful statements to empirical
statements
 2. Emotivism is a theory on the use of
moral language, not its meaning. The
jump from one to the other hasn’t been
justified

17.  3. Fails to account for the place of reason
in ethics. It establishes a false dichotomy:
either there are moral facts like scientific
facts or values are only expressions of
subjective feelings