1. Take for example, that a subjectivist would say there is no…

Question Answered step-by-step 1. Take for example, that a subjectivist would say there is no… 1. Take for example, that a subjectivist would say there is no truth about character, in about how Martin Luther King Jr. , was more virtuous than Adolf Hitler. The subjectivist would then say there is no truth regarding whether Martin Luther King Jr. did or did not, whether Hitler did, or did not, posses vices. Aristotle, who was greatly against subjectivism would say that a subjectivist who believed that there is no objective, true difference between Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. is an unreliable thinker and lacking in virtue themself, since critical and logical reasoning and observation, and virtue, would clearly lead you to say that Adolf Hitler lacked key virtues and possessed numerous vices. Aristotle would also say that another truth in ethics is that no mortal human who can function with others is totally vicious. If a human was totally always vicious, then they would be a monster. So in the end,  Aristotle would say that Martin Luther King Jr. was not always virtuous in every context; none of us are perfectly virtuous. The point is this, therefor the truth is (according to Aristotle):  MLK Jr. showed more virtue than Hitler and MLK Jr. showed less vice than Adolf Hitler. How would someone (like Aristotle) counter subjectivists in this example? Explain. 2. So, is Aristotle correct? Explain. Are there at least a couple of truths about virtue and vice that we humans can grasp using critical thinking and observation regarding patterns of dysfunctional and functional behavior? Or do the Subjectivist have it right in saying there is no objective, true difference when it comes to saying that Martin Luther King Jr. was less vicious than Adolf Hitler, and that MLK Jr was a more fully developed, more wise and more fair person than Adolf Hitler.  Arts & Humanities Philosophy PHILOSOPHY 106 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)