Assignment: history of social sciences

Assignment: history of social sciences
Assignment: history of social sciences
Permalink:
Assignment: Examine the history of social sciences
During Week 5 in Learning Blocks 2 and 3, you will examine the history of social sciences. For your initial post, reflect on the timelines of the social sciences provided. What event or perspective presented in these timelines is most interesting to you and why? How does this event or perspective change how we study individuals, groups, or cultures?
Read the attached, then read these to comments and respond to each with a minimum of 100 words.
1.
Subjectivism is the idea that all morals and ethics are equal and that none are better nor worse than theirs.
“Subjectivism holds that: (1) no human person’s moral system is better than any other human person’s moral values; (2) each human person is free to choose the moral values and ethics, in which she/he believes; (3) no individual, human being, acting in a personal capacity, may impose his/her moral value systems on another human being” (Week 2 Section 2.2).
So what does it mean if subjectivism was the only truth in the world and what we called right was right and what we called wrong was in fact wrong. First, the pros of subjectivism would be greater world peace as all societies and cultures would understand that others have their right to believe they are right. Improved international relations would occur as societies would be more understanding of flexible rights and wrongs. Lastly, this would incorporate religion into the picture and hopefully reduce hostility and extremist groups that result from interpretations of what is right and wrong.
In contrast, with subjectivism, the world might struggle to maintain order. It would struggle to protect life and liberty for the individual. Just as John Stuart Mills advocates that right and wrong, laws vs. no laws should only come to fruition to safeguard the life and liberty of other individuals. Meaning, if it does not threaten others, it should not be an issue whether morally or ethically right or wrong. Another negative impact of subjectivism is no universal code exist, and many individuals may not appreciate that other societies act in specific ways. Meaning, in turn, it could promote hostility rather than curb it.
In the favorable light of subjectivism, we enable other individuals, society’s, and cultures to have their own opinions of right and wrong. It is not the place for people to come together to decide what is right and wrong, as many of those attributes depend on how the society is functioning and often times the primary religion of that society. Meaning, it may be acceptable in one society to allow birth control while in others it may not be. It promotes a world of understanding and peace and flows into sovereignty and allowing states to manage to their cultures and societies.
Although, on the other hand, if everything was universally accepting we as citizens in the United States might have to accept of certain morals and ethics from specific cultures inside the country that occur outside the country. In other words, polygamy would have to be deemed as their right and not subject to the interpretation of a right or wrong act. In the example provided, Carla disapproves of unmarried couples having sex, and she considers lobbying for stronger laws to punish individuals for sex outside of marriage. In subjectivism, this should be an acceptable behavior within a society. Perhaps a religion promotes or condones this behavior; nonetheless, subjectivism holds true that individuals will determine what is right and wrong.
Concerning our society in America, and that we are a democratic republic, the people essentially hold the power. As citizens get to elect those that believe what they think is right and wrong, it, in turn, affect our national policy and therefore subjectivism can have a tremendous impact on a nation, society, and culture.
Respond with 100 words or more
2.
The moral theory of subjectivism states that an individual is free to assign what is moral to him/her. Individuals are not bound by the same moral compass as their neighbors and each is free to do whatever they like as long as what they, as an individual, believe they’re doing is moral.
Let’s say that Bob likes to rip the wings off of living butterflies and he finds nothing wrong with it. If subjectivism is in play, Bob’s actions are completely okay because Bob likes doing it and sees nothing wrong with it. Let’s say Bob’s friend Jack notices what he’s doing to those poor butterflies and voices his concerns to him. Since right and wrong are subjective in this theory both parties are right in their actions; Bob is right for ripping off the wings and Jack is right for speaking up. From this, there is no resolution because no one is in the wrong. If cultural relativism was in play and Bob lived in a society where the mutilation of living things was viewed as an unsavory thing to do, Bob would be in the wrong regardless of whether he liked the action or not.
At first I thought that if subjectivism was the true moral theory it would just lead to chaos, but I read the snippet in this week’s eReading that stated all opposing sides deciding what is right and wrong would basically agree to disagree. (Richard Jacobs, 2018) “Simple subjectivism, then, is deficient because being tolerant skirts the type of dilemmas that ethics seeks to resolve, namely, deciding what is the right thing to do”. Perhaps a plus side to subjectivism is that everyone is their own person and can truly choose to live how they want.