What is simple subjectivism? Explain and evaluate the two best objections to it. Simple subjectivism is a metaethical theory that poses that qualities such as good and bad are true relative to the individual; thus moral judgements are simply expressions of opinion. However, this does not mean that every sentence uttered is true, as someone may propose a claim that does not correctly report their internal, subjective state. Despite being a theory which seemingly encourages acceptance and moral rationality, subjectivism is deemed as flawed on two predominant levels.
The various forms present two major problems; the problem of justice, and the issue of having to predict the consequences of an action. One variant within utilitarianism is Hedonistic or Classic utilitarianism. Which looks at the view ‘what is good for an individual is what tends to promote happiness or pleasure to the individual’. This holds that the only intrinsic good is pleasure, and that the only intrinsic bad is pain. Everything else is good only insofar as it creates pleasure, and bad only insofar as it creates pain.
The perception of exchanging can be accepted either negatively or positively, which is called violation valence. This depends on the level of common interests between the two people, and can also impact the outcome of communication. If the exchange is received negatively, then it will obstruct future communication. If the exchange is received positively, it will enrich the communication. This is the communicator reward valence.
Pacino, however, contends with a time where it is increasingly becoming the norm, but still contends with a society that can be considered moral devoid in some manners, and thus the importance of spirituality and thought is evident in both. Pacino is able to effectively portray Shakespeare’s core values in a manner that is able to best serve his context, and the values he aims to present. Within Elizabethan times, power was a hereditary property, not based upon skill, but upon heritage, but still kept in check by the great chain of being. Shakespeare’s Richard usurps this natural order, and thus brings tyranny and corruption upon the Kingdom. From the outset, Richard makes his evil intent clear, noting cynically and declaratively “Since I cannot prove a lover … I am determined to prove a villain,” revealing that power itself has not corrupted him, but the desire for it.
Small though it be, it will make many mistakes, because it will be composed of men. Discord will reign there” (Democracy, Voltaire). His opinions on the pursuit of progress with abandon were that progress should be sought after but not without humanity and rationale in mind. He would not have wanted progress to be had on the sacrifice of human rights or the loss of rationality. He was somebody who “believed in progress and in the virtues of civilization, contrary to Rousseau’s belief that civilization corrupts man” (Voltaire, New World Encyclopedia).
Utilitarian Theories Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others. Bentham's Principle of Utility: (1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life, (2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e, consequences, (3) equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure'). In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the following criteria: INTENSITY, DURATION, CERTAINTY (or UNCERTAINTY), and its NEARNESS (or FARNESS). He also includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?)
It is evident that there is a fundamental tension between the two world views. However, it would be incorrect to reject one view completely in favor of the other. So, while recognizing the post modern view that truth is unknowable and that we cannot be absolutely certain of our knowledge, I would also like to acknowledge the importance of human dignity. I would also like to state that some of the ethical tenets like Kantian Categorical Imperatives have their basis in human dignity. In other words, we could discover the best in science and social science on the strength of western world view.
I would like to make the argument whether prosocial behavior is selfish or selfless. Firstly, What does it mean to be prosocial? Prosocial behavior is an act that is positively valued by society (A. Trace, Lecture 2, 2012), or they can be acts that intentionally benefit another human being. Secondly, I believe that prosocial behaviour can be both selfish and selfless, completely depending on the person who is doing the act.
If someone deserves something, it is intrinsically good when they get it. If someone wrote a good paper they should be praised and given good grade (I am cheeky and it is part of my charm). However, the opposite can be true as well. Suffering is given to those who deserve it, and those who deserve it usually did something that is seen as morally culpable. So it makes perfect sense that the guilty (the one who is morally culpable) deserves to suffer.
Compare and contrast our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future To compare our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future, it first must be determined what ‘knowledge’ is. According to Plato knowledge is “a justified true belief”. So, knowledge must have a logical evidence and to be approved by society and facts. However, to define ‘knowledge’ is not as easy as it seems. The following quote from Bertrand Russell demonstrates it: "The question how knowledge should be defined is perhaps the most important and difficult one with which we shall deal.