SENSES OF THE SELF

 SUBJECTIVISM - The starting point of subjectivism is the recognition that the

individual thinking person (the subject) is at the heart of all moral valuations.
She is the one who is confronted with the situation and is burdened with the
need to make a decision or judgment. From this point, subjectivism leaps to
the more radical claim that the individual is the sole determinant of what is
morally good or bad, right or wrong.

ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM:
            The basic thought of Ethical Subjectivism is the idea that our moral
opinions are based on our feelings and nothing more.  On this view,  there is
no such thing as “objective” right and wrong.
Subjectivism teaches that there are no objective moral truths out there.

o There are no objective moral facts. Therefore 'murder is wrong'

can't be objectively true

Many forms of subjectivism go a bit further and teach that moral statements
describe how the speaker feels about a particular ethical issue.

o Moral statements are just factual statements about the attitude the

speaker holds on a particular issue
o So if I say "Lying is wrong", all I'm doing is telling you that I
disapprove of telling lies

Some forms of subjectivism generalise this idea to come up with:

o Moral statements are just factual statements about the

attitude normal human beings hold on a particular issue

And this may ultimately lead us to this conclusion about moral truths:

o Moral judgements are dependent on the feelings and attitudes of

the persons who think about such things

Good points of subjectivism

Reflects the subjective elements of morality
  it reflects the close relationship between morality and people's feelings and
opinions - indeed it can cope with the contradictory moral views we often find
ourselves wrestling with

Reflects the evaluative elements of moral statements

 moral statements in everyday life make judgements ("lying is wrong"), factual

statements ("cats have fur") don't

Shows that moral judgements communicate dis/approval

 it reflects the communication of approval and disapproval that seems to go

along with the everyday making of moral statements

May clarify what people are arguing about

 subjectivism may enable people disagreeing over the rightness or wrongness

of some issue to see that the real dispute is not about objective truth but
about their own preferences

Reflects the persuasive intentions behind ethical discussions

 subjectivism may also enable people engaging in moral argument to realise

that they are not arguing about objective truths but trying to persuade their
opponent to adopt their point of view

I disapprove: but surely ethics is about more than feelings.

 Bad points of subjectivism
The problem with subjectivism is that it seems to imply that moral statements
are less significant than most people think they are - this may of course be
true without rendering moral statements insignificant.
"If I approve of something, it must be good"

o Subjectivism seems to tell us that moral statements give

information only about what we feel about moral issues.
o If the simplest form of subjectivism is true then when a person who
genuinely approves of telling lies says "telling lies is good" that
moral statement is unarguably true. It would only be untrue if the
speaker didn't approve of telling lies.
o So under this theory it seems that all the speaker has to do to prove
that lying is good is to show lots of evidence that they do indeed
approve of lying - perhaps that they tell lots of lies and feel good
 about it, indeed are surprised if anyone criticizes them for being a
liar, and that they often praise other people for telling lies.
o Most people would find this way of approaching ethics somewhat
unhelpful, and wouldn't think it reflected the way in which most
people talk about ethical issues.

Moral statements seem more than statements about feelings

o By and large if a person says something is wrong we usually get the

message that they disapprove of that something, but most of us
probably think that the other person is doing more than just telling
us about their feelings.

How can we blame people if moral truths are always subjective?

o If moral statements have no objective truth, then how can we

blame people for behaving in a way that 'is wrong', i.e. if "murder is
wrong" has no objective truth, then how can we justify punishing
people for murder?
o One answer is that we can justify punishment for murder on the
basis of the objective truth that most normal people in society
disapprove of murder. If we do this, we should not pretend that our
justification is based on anything other than the majority view.

 PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM- “Human beings are naturally self-centered, so all

our action are always already motivated by self-interest.”  This theory that
describes the underlying dynamic behind all human actions. As a descriptive
theory, it does not direct one to act in any particular way. Instead, it points out
that there is already an underlying basis for how one acts. The ego or self has
its desires and interest, and all our actions are geared toward satisfying these
interests.

Ethical egoism
   Ethical egoism  differs from psychological egoism in that it does not suppose all
our actions are already inevitably self-serving. Instead, ethical egoism prescribes that
we should make our own ends, our own interest, as the single overriding concern. We
may act in a way that is beneficial to others, but we should do that only if it
ultimately benefits us.
 Ethical egoism is the view that people ought to pursue their own self-
interest, and no one has any obligation to promote anyone else’s interests. It is
thus a normative or prescriptive theory: it is concerned with how people
ought to behave. In this respect, ethical egoism is quite different from
 psychological egoism, the theory that all our actions are ultimately self-
interested. Psychological egoism is a purely descriptive theory that purports to
describe a basic fact about human nature.
Arguments In Support of Ethical Egoism
Scottish political economist and philosopher Adam Smith (1723 - 1790).
 Scottish political economist and philosopher Adam Smith (1723 - 1790).
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Everyone pursuing his own self-interest is the best way to promote the
general good. This argument was made famous by Bernard Mandeville (1670-
1733) in his poem "The Fable of the Bees" and by Adam Smith (1723-1790) in
his pioneering work on economics, "The Wealth of Nations."
In a famous passage, Smith wrote that when individuals single-mindedly
pursue “the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires” they
unintentionally, as if “led by an invisible hand,” benefit society as a whole. This
happy result comes about because people generally are the best judges of
what is in their own interest, and they are much more motivated to work hard
to benefit themselves than to achieve any other goal.
An obvious objection to this argument, though, is that it doesn’t really support
ethical egoism. It assumes that what really matters is the well-being of society
as a whole, the general good. It then claims that the best way to achieve this
end is for everyone to look out for themselves. But if it could be proved that
this attitude did not, in fact, promote the general good, then those who
advance this argument would presumably stop advocating egoism.
Prisoner's Dilemma
Another objection is that what the argument states is not always true. Consider the
prisoner’s dilemma, for instance. This is a hypothetical situation described in game
theory. You and a comrade, (call him X) are being held in prison. You are both asked to
confess. The terms of the deal you are offered are as follows:
If you confess and X doesn’t, you get six months and he gets 10 years.
If X confesses and you don’t, he gets six months and you get 10 years.
If you both confess, you both get five years.
 If neither of you confesses, you both get two years.
Regardless of what X does, the best thing for you to do is confess. Because if he doesn’t
confess, you’ll get a light sentence; and if he does confess, you’ll at least avoid getting
extra prison time. But the same reasoning holds for X as well. According to ethical
egoism, you should both pursue your rational self-interest. But then the outcome is not
the best one possible. You both get five years, whereas if both of you had put your self-
interest on hold, you’d each only get two years.
The point of this is simple. It isn’t always in your best interest to pursue your own self-
interest without concern for others. Sacrificing your own interests for the good of others
denies the fundamental value of your own life to yourself.
Ayn Rand's Objectivism
This seems to be the sort of argument put forward by Ayn Rand, the leading exponent of
“objectivism” and the author of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." Her complaint
is that the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, which includes—or has fed into—modern
liberalism and socialism, pushes an ethic of altruism. Altruism means putting the interests
of others before your own.
This is something people are routinely praised for doing, encouraged to do, and in some
circumstances even required to do, such as when you pay taxes to support the needy.
According to Rand, no one has any right to expect or demand that I make any sacrifices
for the sake of anyone other than myself.
Russian-born American author and philosopher Ayn Rand, smiles and stands outdoors
with her arms folded, in front of the Grand Central building, midtown Manhattan, New
York City.
 Ayn Rand, 1957. New York Times Co./Getty Images
A problem with this argument is that it seems to assume that there is generally a conflict
between pursuing your own interests and helping others. In fact, though, most people
would say that these two goals are not necessarily opposed at all. Much of the time they
complement one another.
For instance, one student may help a housemate with her homework, which is altruistic.
But that student also has an interest in enjoying good relations with her housemates. She
may not help everyone in all circumstances, but she will help if the sacrifice involved is
not too great. Most people behave like this, seeking a balance between egoism and
altruism.
More Objections to Ethical Egoism
Ethical egoism is not a very popular moral philosophy. This is because it goes against
certain basic assumptions that most people have regarding what ethics involves. Two
objections seem especially powerful.
Ethical egoism has no solutions to offer when a problem arises involving conflicts of
interest. Many ethical issues are of this sort. For example, a company wants to empty
waste into a river; the people living downstream object. Ethical egoism advises that both
parties actively pursue what they want. It doesn’t suggest any sort of resolution or
commonsense compromise.
Ethical egoism goes against the principle of impartiality. A basic assumption made by
many moral philosophers—and many other people, for that matter—is that we should not
discriminate against people on arbitrary grounds such as race, religion, sex, sexual
orientation or ethnic origin. But ethical egoism holds that we should not even try to be
impartial. Rather, we should distinguish between ourselves and everyone else, and give
ourselves preferential treatment.
To many, this seems to contradict the very essence of morality. The golden rule—
versions of which appear in Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—
says we should treat others as we would like to be treated. One of the greatest moral
philosophers of modern times, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), argued that the
fundamental principle of morality (the “categorical imperative,” in his jargon) is that we
should not make exceptions of ourselves. According to Kant, we shouldn’t perform an
action if we cannot honestly wish that everyone would behave in a similar way in the
same circumstances.