Relativism and subjectivism generate contradictions about what is morally right or wrong. Subjectivism is contradictory due to its consideration of the person as a primary determinant of what is ethically right or wrong. Its principles are based on actions viewed as morally right if a person approves of it which conflicts with moral objectivism where actions are defined on moral principles which are valid for every person. Subjectivism hinders genuine moral disagreements since every person is justified according to what they approve. Decisions of what is right or wrong are based on the individual who creates a defective view on morality due to the diversity of individual moral views. On the other hand, relativism is contradictory because it assigns culture the role of determining what is wrong or right. Due to the emergence of the various culture which holds varying opinions on morality, relativism becomes controversial as subjectivism.
The theory of morality subjectivism can be accused of generating contradiction due to its dependence on individual rather than a society which promotes adoptions of values and attitudes such as hypocrisy an inconsistency. The theory makes morality meaningless since o argument is possible on morality when personal principles define morals. Relativism theory leads to contraction due to its lack of universal accepted culture and its overreliance on cultural acceptance. The theory of relativism denies the basis of the law since some cultures disregard specific laws. Their argument that civil disobedience is depending on which law the cultures agrees on which leads to conflicts. In relativism, contradiction also arises in cultural decisions such as which is the correct culture to subscribe to, the criteria to use when choosing and how many people make culture.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A relativist will defend the contradictions of relativism by portraying the importance of culture in society. Without a culture to subscribe to moral behaviors. Religion plays a vital role in society and provides diversity such that people have a wide variety to choose from. A subjectivist would argue that personal decision and morals are valid as they promote independence. In relativism, all moral principles are derived from cultural acceptance and since here ate no universal principles to validate all culture relativism complicates morality and choices of moral principles. However, subjectivists have no such dilemmas as their follow their judgment and decisions when exercising their moral principles.
Expressivism is concerned with the meaning of moral language in which they suggest that moral language functions as an expression of desires like attitudes, it explains the connection between moral opinions and moral actions. It correlates with moral sentences and the attitudes they express. .in their evaluation of moral language, they focus on sentences that use moral terms and account for them as non-descriptive and not fact stating. They argue that moral terms such as good, wrong or right, do not refer to real-world experiences. They claim that moral sentences express an evaluation attitude on an object and do not state any fact about the object of focus. They evaluate the function of moral language as non-descriptive and therefore take moral sentences as untrue and deny the sentences their truth value.
Expressionism differs from the relativists s view as relativism concentrates on the lack of universally accepted moral principles and hence moral sentences and language. Objectivists would argue that expression varies from one person to another and that the truth or facts in moral language and sentences will depend on the accepted cultural or societal norms that govern an individual. If the cultures agree with the facts or truths expressed in the language, then they will be recognized as valid by people who subscribe to that culture.
On the other hand, Objectivists believe that moral language has an objective reason. They, therefore, take moral sentences and evaluate their objectives which determines the truth or fact of the language used. Objectivists claim that moral language is descriptive of the real world occurrences and should be examined objectively to interpret and at upon the information passed on. It also differs from expressivity’s point of view on the truth value as they evaluate the attitude of the sentence based on its objective value.
Expressionists differ with nihilists, who holds that there are no valid more principles or moral language in various ways. By arguing that morality does not exist the nihilist deny the presence of moral language and its assumption of it as non-descriptive and untrue. Nihilists do not believe invalid moral principles, and therefore their view on the validity and use of moral language is subjective. If morality does not exist then the honorable word is not valid
Expressivism is essential and advantageous as it allows us to understand the intimate connection between moral language opinion and action. It explains why moral terms cannot be translated into non-moral language and instead seeks to explain to us the features of the moral language, their correlation to language and the attitudes that they express. On the other hand, expressivism presents a disadvantage by contrasting moral language with ordinary descriptive language. In its effort to explain how moral thought and language functions, expressivism constrains meanings and interpretations of moral principles by deeming them untrue in the real world without offering a substantial explanation from their untrueness. It also fails to make sense of moral thoughts in some circumstances. It shows inconsistency in its definition of moral language and fails to relate this with facts of how people think and talk about moral matters.
