Moral Judgements

Ð''Moral judgments are nothing more than expressions of personal preference. While there is some point to arguing about questions of fact, moral arguments are a waste of time. The only thing at issue is what people like or don't like'. I have probably read this statement about a million times and still do not have any qualms against it. Moral judgments are typically based on your upbringing, your likes, your religion (or non-religion), and numerous other aspects that make up your personality. Those listed traits and further attributions give you the basis of what you are going to feel morally to many issues such as: homosexuality, abortion, murder, stealing, etc. While many of us feel that we are always precise when making a judgment, this paper will show that no matter how hard we try; the above statement will always be true.

In Rachels' The Elements of Moral Philosophy; it states, "Ethical Subjectivism is the idea that our moral opinions are based on our feelings, and nothing more". Ethical Subjectivism is what the topic statement is defining. When you make a moral judgment, such as the following: I disagree with homosexuality; what is your basis for the judgment? Society, your parents, your religion Ð'- these are all things that round out your personal preferences. By making such a statement, you are in fact just stating your own opinion (which is an extension of your preferences). In the dictionary, opinion is defined as: a belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; in layman's terms, it is a statement that is biased by your likes and dislikes. By using Ethical Subjectivism, it clearly explains why moral judgments are just a branch of your preferences. Ethical Subjectivism is "Ð'...a theory about the nature of moral judgments. It says that no matter what moral judgments we make, we are only expressing our personal feelings, and nothing more."

The topic statement also says "Ð'...moral judgments are a waste of time. The only thing at issue is what people like or don't like". The fact of the matter is that the second part of the statement is absolutely true. What is the real point of arguing with someone over his or her moral judgments? If moral judgments are just an expression of our own preferences then we are really just trying to change what a person likes and dislikes. When Rachels wrote his explanation of Falwell's thought on homosexuality, he explained that: "Ð'...Falwell says that homosexuality is wrong, he is not stating a fact about homosexuality. Instead, he is merely saying