The best of Pojman’s arguments against subjectivism
Reflection 1
I should flip the switch to kill the one person hence saving the other five people on the other track. In order to show the morality of this choice, let’s make a distinction between “negative duties” and ‘positive duties.’ Negative duties are the duties that cease a person from harming others, while positive duties are duties to do good to others-in the trolley dilemma to save lives. The trolley problem brings out a conflict between two negative responsibilities. Thus I should ask myself whether I should not hurt one person or not to hurt five people. Therefore the answer is the latter since it results in less harm. Saving five lives instead of one is more morally acceptable according to my thoughts. I would flip the switch and save the five people at the expense of the one person since harming one person is a lesser evil compared to hurting five people.
Reflection 2
The best of Pojman’s arguments against subjectivism is that with subjectivism, there is no universal agreement on moral principles resulting in impossibility in resolving interpersonal conflicts. I think that Pojman’s argument against subjectivism is successful since individuals determine subjectivism results in absurd conclusions since what is right or wrong. With subjectivism, morality has no meaning, and its support since the views of society on morals is not acceptable. There is no social agreement concerning moral principles since morality is defined by an individual when it comes to moral subjectivism. The culture does not state what is wrong or right, nor does it accept beliefs. Therefore, interpersonal criticism is impossible, and resolving interpersonal conflicts is difficult since what is right and wrong differs from one individual to the next because every person has what they believe. A culture or society does not define this.