Share
Explore BrainMass

Can subjectivism be used to resolve disputes between people?

One thing a moral theory should be able to do is find a way to resolve disputes people might have over a specific issue. For example, if I want to say X is wrong, and you want to say X is right, the theory should be able to say something one way or the other. But subjectivism seems to say that we could each say opposite things, and both be right. How could this be the case? And if it can't settle disputes, how does this damage the theory?

Solution Preview

One thing a moral theory should be able to do is find a way to resolve disputes people might have over a specific issue. For example, if I want to say X is wrong, and you want to say X is right, the theory should be able to say something one way or the other. But subjectivism seems to say that we could each say opposite things, and both be right. How could this be the case? And if it can't settle disputes, how does this damage the theory?

Under subjectivism there are innumerable rights because the determining factor in the "rightness" is the opinion ...

Solution Summary

A discussion of the merits of subjectivism for problem solving and conflict resolution. Over 350 words of original text.

$2.19