rich poor and fantasy people think go to I've in another places is easy

 Share

The distinction between subjective and objective ethics is a complex and long-standing debate in moral philosophy. While some individuals may perceive subjective ethics as straightforward due to its alignment with personal feelings and cultural norms, a deeper examination reveals its inherent complexities and challenges.

According to www.iAsk.Ai - Ask AI:

Subjective ethics posits that moral principles are dependent on individual perspectives, emotions, and cultural contexts, leading to varying moral conclusions across different people or situations. This contrasts with objective ethics, which seeks universal, fact-based, and measurable truths to determine a single, correct solution to moral problems [1]. The idea that morality is subjective often stems from observing the diverse moral codes across societies and throughout history [3]. For instance, what is considered moral in one culture might be deemed immoral in another, suggesting that moral precepts are expressions of cultural preference rather than universal truths [3]. This perspective is reinforced by the understanding that human emotions and personal experiences significantly influence an individual's perception of right and wrong [1] [4].

However, the apparent simplicity of subjective ethics quickly dissolves upon closer inspection. If morality is purely subjective, it becomes challenging to condemn universally recognized atrocities like genocide, as such condemnation would merely be a matter of personal taste rather than an appeal to a shared moral standard [3]. This highlights a fundamental tension: while individuals often act based on subjective moral intuitions, there's a simultaneous desire for a basis to critique actions that are widely considered harmful [3].

Furthermore, the very concept of "moral truth" becomes problematic under a strictly subjective framework. Moral relativism, a form of subjective ethics, suggests that the truth value of ethical statements is dependent on something, such as culture or individual values [1]. This implies that there cannot be one right solution if the solution is always dependent on a variable factor [1]. While some moral principles, like the wrongness of murder, stealing, and lying, appear to have a degree of permanence and ubiquity across cultures, giving them an "objective feel," their interpretation and application can still be context-dependent [3]. For example, while lying is generally considered wrong, there are situations where it might be justified, such as to protect fugitives during wartime [3]. This suggests a hybrid approach where universal values interact with contextual application [3].

Philosophers also point out that if morality were purely subjective, it would be volatile, uncertain, and ambiguous, making it difficult to establish stable social institutions or guide collective life [3]. The need for a common framework to navigate moral dilemmas in a pluralistic society necessitates some degree of objectivity [1] [3]. While personal desires and impulses are subjective, a just society requires principles that transcend individual perspectives to serve the collective good [3].

Moreover, the idea that morality is a human construct, and therefore inherently subjective, faces challenges from the perspective of moral realism, which posits that objective moral facts or truths exist independently of human thought or feelings [5]. While ethical realists struggle to explain the widespread disagreement on moral issues if objective truths exist, the alternative of pure subjectivism can lead to the conclusion that moral statements are merely expressions of approval or disapproval, lacking factual truth [5].

Ultimately, while personal feelings, cultural norms, and individual experiences undeniably shape moral views, the complexities of establishing universal standards, addressing widespread harms, and fostering societal cohesion demonstrate that subjective ethics is far from straightforward. Many contemporary views suggest a nuanced understanding, acknowledging both the subjective elements of moral experience and the need for objective principles to guide human behavior and societal organization [3] [4] [5].

---

AuthoritatThe perception that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening is a prevalent and well-supported observation, rooted in decades of economic trends and societal shifts. This phenomenon, often referred to as economic inequality, encompasses both income and wealth disparities [1] [2].

According to www.iAsk.Ai - Ask AI:

The belief that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening stems from several observable trends and data points. One of the most significant indicators is the increasing concentration of wealth at the very top of the economic spectrum. For instance, in 2021, the top ten percent of Americans held nearly 70 percent of U.S. wealth, a substantial increase from about 61 percent in 1989. Conversely, the bottom 50 percent of families owned only about 2.5 percent of wealth in 2021 [3]. This trend is not unique to the U.S.; income inequality has risen in most advanced and major emerging economies, with the income share of the top 10 percent (and even more so the top 1 percent) rising sharply in many countries [2].

Several factors contribute to this perceived and actual widening gap:

Causes of Widening Economic Inequality

1. Technological Advancements and Skill-Biased Technological Change: Rapid technological progress, particularly in automation and artificial intelligence, has increased productivity but also contributed to rising economic inequality. These advancements often replace low-skilled jobs while benefiting high-skilled workers, leading to a widening income gap. Individuals without access to digital skills and education are left behind in an increasingly knowledge-driven economy [10]. This shift in labor demand from routine low- to middle-level skills to new, higher-level skills, along with the shift of income from labor to capital due to increasing automation, exacerbates inequality [2].

2. Globalization: While globalization has led to overall economic growth, it has also exacerbated income inequality by shifting low-skilled manufacturing jobs to lower-wage countries. This leaves many domestic workers unemployed or underpaid, and the benefits of globalization have disproportionately favored large corporations and highly skilled professionals [10].

3. Changes in Institutional Settings and Policy Decisions:
   • Erosion of Labor Market Institutions: Declines in minimum wage laws and collective bargaining have contributed to stagnant wages for many workers [2] [10]. The federal minimum wage in the U.S., for example, has not increased since 2009, remaining at $7.25, which is lower than the cost of living in every U.S. city [5].
   • Economic Deregulation and Financialization: Increased financialization of economies, coupled with a high concentration of financial income and wealth, contributes to inequality. The redistributive role of the state has also been weakening due to declining tax progressivity and pressure on transfer programs [2].
   • Tax Policies: Tax structures often favor the wealthy, allowing them to accumulate wealth at a faster rate. For instance, federal tax subsidies are currently skewed dramatically to ensure the wealthy become wealthier [5]. Tax cuts on major assets, including inheritances, have also contributed to increased wealth at the top [8].
   • Monetary Policy and Inflation: Accommodative monetary policies and inflation, particularly asset price inflation, have significantly contributed to wealth inequality. Central banks' focus on consumer price inflation has allowed excessive increases in real estate and stock markets, benefiting those who own assets and widening the gap with those who primarily depend on labor income [9]. This has drastically reduced social mobility; for example, the wealth-to-income ratio in France has risen from 3.5 in the 1990s to 7 today, meaning it would take 70 years for a household saving 10% of an average income to attain average wealth, compared to 35 years previously [9].

4. Legacy of Historical Discrimination: In countries like the United States and South Africa, historical policies such as slavery, Jim Crow laws, redlining, and apartheid have created and perpetuated deep racial wealth divides. These systemic barriers made it impossible for Black and other marginalized communities to build wealth, and their effects resonate to this day [5] [7]. For instance, the median Black family's wealth dropped by more than half between 1983 and 2016, while the median white household saw a 33 percent increase [5].

ive Sources

1. Is there a distinction between subjective and objective ethics or not. [philosophy.stackexchange.com]↩
2. Ethics. [en.wikipedia.org]↩
3. Is Morality Objective Or Subjective? [philosophynow.org]↩
4. Objective vs Subjective Morality. [theness.com]↩
5. Ethics. [www.bbc.co.uk]↩