Relativism, Subjectivism, Egoism
Egoism
In all aspects of one’s daily life, there are numerous decisions to undertake. All acts that an individual decides to do are directed towards an end product which in one way or the other benefits the doer of the action. As in the case of the fifteen year old mother-to-be, and her father, who is seeking to sell her yet unborn child for $500 and in exchange for a ten year old car, there are quite some implications that can be deduced from the situation which amplifies the concepts of subjectivism, relativism and egoism. Analyzing the situation using the subjectivist critique will suggest that the fifteen year old mother’s action is infallible as she claims, the baby belongs to her and so she has the moral right to exchange it for cash and for properties. Such action, for a subjectivist, is to be construed as valid for her actions cannot be judged according to someone else’s standard not even the standard of morality or legality set forth by any competent authority such as the law prohibiting the marketing of babies (born or unborn) as promulgated by Congress. The subjectivist part of the situation is expressed by the daughter’s claim of her moral right to sell the unborn baby as based alone on the claim that she “owns” the baby. Hence, basing on her claim, she is convinced that there is nothing wrong with selling the unborn baby even for the measly price (for a human life) of $500 and a ten year old car. Further, her and her father’s subjectivism is reflected by their disregard of generally accepted social and legal norms. It is well established in any society and culture in the modern world that marketing one’s own flesh and blood is a taboo or an act that the society condemns. In fact, even without laws to prohibit and penalize such acts, the same will still be sanctioned by the society for the act is by and in itself contrary to moral values. As Rachels proposed, moral facts do exist and one of these moral facts is to take care of your own child, bear them to this earth, rear them and nurture them to become good human beings. And this moral fact cannot be subjective or specific only to some for the same is shared by all known cultures and society. On the other hand, the young mother-to-be could not claim her moral right to sell her child from the premise that she “owns” the child. Parents do not own their child not even legally. Further, such reason is shallow and illogical. There is no steadfast rule that states that since A is a child of B therefore B owns A. Before such moral ground can be claimed and justified, it must be first backed by credible reason and other alternatives (Rachels, 2006) otherwise, the social norms will have to prevail, hence, making the act (of selling the baby) wrong. Furthermore, as Hinman may put it (Ethical Egoism, p. 14), the value of self-love i.e. to seek for our interests, is a good value but it must be coupled with the responsibility of taking into consideration other values such as caring for other people’s welfare.
