Ethical Subjectivism

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau is a Swiss philosopher who gives his theory of why he is in support of ethical subjectivism, as well as Mary Wollstonecraft, who is a English philosopher who wrote " A Vindication of the Rights of Women". In her writing she gives reasons for why she is against ethical subjectivism. Ethical subjectivism is defined as a philosophical theory that morality is created by or relative to the individual person, dependent on what people think or feel as an individual. What may be right for one, may be wrong for another. Rousseau believes in feeling over reason, and when it comes to morality, he believed in the "law of the heart". According to this we as people can discover goodness in our inner feelings (pg. 30). In Rousseau's writing, he applies his theory of education to a hypothetical character, Emile. He also applies another hypothetical character, Sophy. In reading Rousseau's writing, he gives points for his reasoning in supporting ethical subjectivisim and how he believes it to hold no universal values. Wollstonecraft however believes that the state of nature is preferable to civilization. She discusses in her writing the role of reason in moral decision making, as well as argues that socialization works to make women more dependent, and emotional rather than rational. She counteracts Rousseau's argument by pointing out that Rousseau's version of ethical subjectivism, although based on freedom, can perhaps be used to oppress women by arguing that virtue is different for women, because women live by a different nature (pg. 37).  Rousseau provides metaethical supports that morality is relative and men and women reason differently. Whereas Wollstonecraft provides metaethical reasons being that in her opinion, morality is universal (eternal standard of virtue), and men and women can both reason according to rationality. Rousseau's normative points are simply listening to the law of your heart (listening to your gut), and the law of nature. Wollstonecraft's points are to live virtuously, and she also believes in living in civilization. Rousseau applies these points to the education of Emile and Sophy, whereas Wollstonecraft's arguments apply to herself, serving as and example of her theory about morality and her views. I will now address the question, is ethical subjectivisim a good moral theory? The definition of moral theory, is a coherent structure the analyzes the guidelines and values that we live by, offers advice (practical) about how we ought to live. A good theory, is one that is not contradictory ( is consistent), provides moral principles that shape our actions and character. Not leading to immoral implication, but yet improving your critical thinking, when it comes to moral analysis.
    In Rousseau's writing, he is in support of ethical subjectivism, which I defined in my summary as being dependent upon what an individual thinks or feels. His reasoning for supporting ethical subjectivism are perhaps liberty (being free as an individual), and making good decisions, because man in his opinion naturally by nature are good. Rousseau believes that ethical subjectivism holds no universal moral values, but yet better to live in nature. He applies his reasoning to education and says "education comes to us from nature itself". "Internal development of our faculties and of our organs is the education nature gives us". "Watch nature carefully, and follow the paths she traces out for you". " This is the law of nature". "Do you not see that in thinking to correct her you destroy her work and counteract the effect of all her cares?"(Rousseau, pg. 31). Here in these quotes Rousseau is writing about his beliefs and points for arguing that it is better to live in the law of nature, and that through nature, education comes to us. He says to watch carefully, and follow her path ( natures), as he believes that this is the better way of life.  Rousseau supports this in his writing with metaethical reasons, normative reasons, and how he applies this through character. Rousseau's metaethical reasoning, is that morality is relative. He also believes that men and women reason differently. Emile and Sophy are put in place to represent this theory. Rousseau says that men are active and strong, whereas women are passive and weak. Which I disagree with, perhaps back when Rousseau was writing this, this is how it was between men and women and the roles that men and women fulfilled. But in today's society, I would say that this particular idea has changed, and the roles of women have become stronger, as well as the roles of men have changed too. Now we have same sex marriage laws being questioned between men and women. So the role of strict men and women that Rousseau argues, is not how today's society is, which is understandable because society changes. Some good example of how society is changing, is that women are enlisting in the army, becoming successful women perhaps holding a political position in office, and when it comes to children, some dads are staying home more often, and women going back to work. Rousseau believes that people are naturally like this, perhaps this is true, but I don't necessarily think that women are born being weak, or that men are born strong. Its how you think or feel as an individual. So yes, I do find myself agreeing with partial points that Rousseau makes in his argument. Rousseau's normative points are to listen to the law of the heart (listen to your gut), this could be based on experience in your life. Living by the law of nature, he implies that you naturally do this and that it is better to live this way. In Wollstonecraft's writing she states that she is against ethical subjectivisim and that the state of nature is preferable to civilization (pg. 37). Her reasons for being against ethical subjectivism are perhaps society is not corrupted. She believes in eternal standards of morality- being virtuous and that morality is universal, she also argues for the equality of men an women.  "Consequently the perfection of our nature and capability of happiness, must be estimated by the degree of reason, virtue, and knowledge, that distinguish the individual, and direct law which bind society" (Wollstonecraft, pg. 38). Here Wollstonecraft is supporting her theory that happiness comes from living virtuously and that acting virtuously will perhaps bring happiness. Wollstonecraft's theory in metaethical standards are that morality is universal. She believes that men and women can both reason according to rationality. Her normative beliefs are that of living virtuously ( which is in the lines of Aristotle), to act virtuously or rationally, and to live in civilization. The way Wollstonecraft applies this to her theory is by applying it to herself, by serving as and example of her theory about morality and how people ought to live. Overall to conclude, Rousseau, in support of ethical subjectivism, and ethical subjectivism having no universal moral value, argues that morality is relative and that the way of life is best lived by nature. That people should live there life according to how they think or feel as individuals, better yet they live this way naturally. That men and women reason differently. Wollstonecraft counteracts Rousseau's argument, by arguing against ethical subjectivism and supporting it with the theory that morality is universal, that men and women both reason rationally, and that you should live your life virtuously as well as act virtuously.

Comprehensive entry

   The question is asked "can and ethics course work towards bridging the gap between intellect and character?" My opinion is yes, I believe this for three reasons. One being because you are attending an ethics course, the course can help your character, and work on your intelligence all in one.
   First reason that I agree with the questions "can and ethics course work towards bridging the gap between intellect and character" is being that one is in an ethics course which hopefully will help with learning the difference between good vs. bad, which is what ethics is. His or her may learn or know the difference between good or bad, or think they know before attending the course, but can they live it out or when faced with a good or bad situation can they make the right decision. Secondly perhaps before attending the course your character is low and needs to be improve. Maybe being in an ethics course can help with that and once you have realized the difference between good and bad and can be strong enough to make the best decision, or the right decision, your character will improve with your growth of learning. Thirdly the reason why I agree with the question is that perhaps one has a strong character, but their intellect is low, ethics can help with that by providing intelligence and knowledge about good vs. bad or just general knowledge to help build upon your intelligence. I believe that ones character is very important ad will help carry you through live as a individual, but others may disagree with this is think that intellect is more important in life. Perhaps an ethics course can help with this by building your character, building your intellect, and distinguishing the difference between good vs. bad. As Coles says "intellect can grow and grow" (Coles, pg. 10), but I  believe that character is something also that can grow and grow, its all in what you choose for yourself and to hopefully bridge the gap some what between intellect and character as one grows.

The Disparity Between Intellect and Character

   In Robert Coles " The Disparity Between Intellect and Character" is a brief discussion about a student sharing her concerns for the fact that she attends a college that focuses more on intellect rather than ones character. The student shares her concerns of the struggle between intellect and character and how she doesn't understand why its not important or ever addressed at her college, which she is struggling to remain apart of. Coles addresses why colleges perhaps pay less attention to character now a days and gives his definition of character.
   Coles writes about how we members participating in college communities can help bridge the gap between intellect and character. Coles says "character is higher than intellect" (Coles, pg. 10), which I strongly agree with. I believe that ones character speaks louder then ones intellect. Ones character to me is more important, yes I do believe that we as college students and professors working on campus should help fill the gap between intellect and character because both are important in growing as a student and a moral person, but when it come down to one out weighing the other in my opinion, character is higher for me. I think that Coles thinks that colleges pay less attention to a students character because why should they care about there students character, I feel that as long as there students are making good grades and their school is ranked high, why does it matter if there students are being good people and doing good things as far as making good decisions, showing respect for others and just simple manners. I don't think perhaps the college I attend is necessarily like this but in my opinion there are colleges out there are like this and why would they care if there's strong character walking around there campus. Perhaps this is why Coles thinks that colleges pay less attention to ones character. I'm not saying that all colleges are like this or that they do not care, but that I do agree that colleges pay less attention to it. If I were running or in charge of a college I would care. My students character and how they act being a good person or bad is very important. Ones character will get them, me farther in life than how book smart I am or how high my intellect is. Perhaps institutions use to teach their students how to become good and decent people, but now intellect is drilled into students and an overload or information is thrown at you for you to retain and never forgot. How can you work on building your character if your constantly trying to live up to the student sitting next to you that receives all A's but yet cant be friendly, carrying on a conversation, or just be a good person at heart. This is what the student in Coles "The Disparity Between Intellect and Character" expresses in her concern to the professor. A students actions and attitude speak much louder than words. You can get a good idea of someones character based on their attitude and actions they show. The distinction between knowing what is good and becoming a good person, is that you may know what it takes to be a good person or what it means to actually make the good (right) decisions when presented with a choice of good and bad, but can you actually make good decisions all the time and consider yourself a good person? I do believe that as Coles says "intellect can grow and grow"( Coles, pg. 10), but the message here is not to forget your character in building your intellect.

Nicomachean Ethics

   Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" analysis the term "good" as well as defines happiness as the highest of all goods achieved. Establishes the connection between happiness and virtue, as well as what is virtue and the two kinds of virtue. Aristotle gives his views of human nature and the function of humans. He covers the source of morality as well as what habituation has to do with becoming virtuous.

   First Aristotle analysis " good " and puts into terms what "good" is. He says that " every action and pursuit is thought to aim at some good. Meaning every action you take in your life and pursuit you make to find happiness has to have some good come out of it or be contained in it. And for this, while aiming for it you will find some good. There are three prominent types of life, enjoyment, political, and contemplative. Aristotle also defines happiness as being the highest of good, which i agree with because you think about living well and having a purpose in life as a good person making good decisions, the out come is going to be good. Otherwise what is the point of living without happiness. Happiness is desired in life, by which we can achieve by living out good things and making good decisions when it come to right and wrong, good and bad. Aristotle says that some think that pleasure, wealth or honor bring happiness, but all these things differ from one another and can be identified with different things. Happiness has a central purpose in life and leads to virtue. Virtue is achieved by maintaining happiness in my opinion because if your maintaining happiness and living your life out good, then virtue is in your life and your living high moral standards. In my opinion virtue is showing high moral standards and choosing to live a good life with good decisions. Aristotle defines virtue as behaving in the right manner and stating that we learn virtue through our habits and practices of our daily living. Aristotle says we choose virtue perhaps for the sake of happiness and for that we think that we shall be happy. There are two kinds of virtue that Aristotle talks about, intellectual virtue and moral virtue. Intellectual virtue requires experience and time, whereas moral virtue is a result of habit. I believe that happiness and virtue are connected by the way you live your life and the fact that if you have high standards for you living style, and your living your life good ( making the right decisions), then happiness is achieved through self fulfillment.

1.