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.