Talk:Ethical subjectivism

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

compatibility of subjectivism with "absolutism" and "relativism"

In contemporary parlance, shouldn't the point be made this way: subjectivism as a metaethical doctrine is neutral between particularism and generalism, or perhaps between contextualism and absolutism? I realize that Brandt uses the term "relativism" to mean "contextualism" in the quoted source, and the sense of "relativism" is clearly defined (more or less) in the current Wikipedia article, but "relativism" just seems like the wrong term to use here, especially since this is not the sense of relativism that dominates the Wikipedia article on moral relativism. -- SCPhilosopher 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Bauer

I'm taking out the reference to Jack Bauer; he's clearly more of a extreme anti-deontological consequentialist, not a subjectivist, so the reference is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.88.80 (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and as evidence I offer the way he tortured that Arabic guy for information about where the nuclear bomb was being hidden. --70.131.60.45 (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitivism vs. Non-cognitivism

This seems awfully narrow as an account of subjectivism, e.g, it leaves out emotivism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.82.240.159 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please clarify why ethical subjectivist theories must be cognitivist (i.e. propositional). Surely all non-cognitivist theories are subjectivist. How is emotivism, for example, not a subjectivist theory? 94.195.129.111 (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the language of meta-ethics being confused between various different authors, we've settled into a sort of de-facto set of terms for the different theories here at wikipedia. We distinguish between ethical subjectivism and moral relativism, which might otherwise be used in similar ways, as such:

Moral relativism is the broader, more "substantial" notion of ethical standards differing between parties (be they cultures or individuals or what have you);
Ethical subjectivism is the more specific semantic theory which says, roughly, that a claim that something is good or bad is reducible to a merely factual claim about whether some relevant party approves or disapproves of that that, e.g. "My society disapproves of jay-walking" and "jay-walking is wrong (in my society)" actually mean the exact same thing and don't just imply each other or coincide.

The two come apart in theories like Ideal observer theory and Divine command theory, which are both universal (and thus non-relative) and yet subjective (because they say "x is good" means "an ideal observer would approve of x" or "God approves of x"). Likewise, emotivism is clearly relative but not subjective in the sense used here, since emotivism doesn't claim that ethical assertions are propositional claims at all, but rather merely expressions of feelings.

--Pfhorrest (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, "unlike ethical non-cognitivism [of which emotivism is a form], moral relativism does not deny that moral claims can be true; it only denies that they can be made true by some objective, trans-cultural moral order", which seem to me to mean that emotivism is not relative. ZFT (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Individualist ethical subjectivism

I can understand how subjectivism can refer to a number of theories. However, there isn't enough material here to clarify how subjectivism is a type of theory and individualist subjectivism is a token, or to explain the difference between the latter and any other token. The two articles appear identical. I propose a merge of the two articles, plus a short description of any other token. 94.195.129.111 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vs. relativism: conflicting definitions in multiple sources

The definitions of and relationship between relativism and subjectivism seems to vary by source, sometimes even within the same source. ZFT (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the senses used as the topics of our articles here, ethical subjectivism can differ from relativism in the case where a unique universal subject is the referent of moral propositions, such as in divine command theory or ideal observer theory. They are semantically ethical subjectivism because they hold ethical propositions to refer to the attitudes or commands of God or the Ideal Observer, but because in either case that subject is singular and unchanging they remain substantially universalism, not relativist. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]