Can someone explain subjectivism for me?

[drudman]

I don't post often anymore, but I have a degree in Phil, so I think I can help you.

Subjectivism says that all act tokens (specific instances of agents performing actions) are just that - merely things that happen. The thing that makes them special are that people decide to call them good or evil. But they are not "actually" good or evil. They are merely labeled, by people, as such. Thus, according to subjectivism, no action is good or evil. They merely bear those labels - and the may differ depending on who you ask.

This view is the opposite of objectivism, which says that all actions are objectively good or evil, regardless of what labels people might put on them.

Another way of thinking about this would be to say, let us consider the act token of the agent David Sklansky performing the act of proposing a challenge to theists at time X. According to objectivism, this act is intrinsically either good or evil. It doesn't matter that some people say it is good, and that some people say that it is evil - half are right, and half are wrong (committing an error in moral judgment). Subjectivism would say that the act isn't good or evil - it merely is something that generates moral judgments. But these judgments are only "real" insofar as the judgers believe that they are good or evil. They are not in fact, actually good or evil - that is to say, if there were no entities who were capable of making moral judgments, this act would not be good or evil.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Outward goods and evils semm practically indistinguishable except in so far as they result in getting moral judgments made about them. But then the moral judgments seem the main thing, and the outward facts mere perishing instruments for their production. This is subjectivism.

[/ QUOTE ]

It says that facts or events are not inherently good or bad, but acquire this quality once they're morally judged. The next sentence is tricky, but it means that this is so much so, that the moral judgement itself is what creates good and evil, just that it needs a trigger, the otherwise irrelevant facts or events.

Now, you have to have in mind that morality is something that doesn't make sense objectively speaking, and more importantly, that morality itself is within each individual, and it's different for each of them (however similar). The text then goes one step ahead and says that the effect morality has on your view on facts and events IS subjectiveness. Or if you want to understand it in a different way, it might just be saying that this is an example of subjectiveness. But I'd go with the former, the way the text is put, and without more context at my disposal.

(note that when the text talks of morality, it means how all the possible feelings, emotions and senses an individual can experience create judgement on facts and events as being good or evil)

[optimus_prime]

completely forgot about this thread, but thanks a lot guys it really helped me out.

BTW FYI FWIW and other acronyms I slayed the exam.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
This view is the opposite of objectivism, which says that all actions are objectively good or evil, regardless of what labels people might put on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]