Ethical subjectivism and ethical relativism are two world-views that have been popular in the past, and are resurfacing today. Both world-views teach that ethics cannot be objective, or correct in all cases regardless of culture. Both world-views presuppose that there cannot be absolute truth in the field of ethics, and therefore no universal truth claims.
Ethical subjectivism is the belief that truth can only be determined by the individual, and every individual has his or her own set of right and wrong. No one can say that another person’s opinion is right or wrong; what is true to one person may not be true to another. So cannibalism can be right and ethical for one person, but not for another. They claim there is no ultimate truth that says eating a dead body is right or wrong; it’s all up to what each person believes to be true.
This world-view, however popular it may be, is flawed. By this line of thinking, every individual is morally right, and no one person can be wrong. There can be no real discussion about the actions of the individual because there is nothing to discuss; there would be stating and sharing opinions and going no further. You couldn’t change anyone’s mind, and it wouldn’t be morally right of you to try and change someone’s mind because what is right for you might not be right for them (depending on your own belief of rather it is right or wrong to try and change someone’s views). The worldview ultimately takes ethics out of the question, because everyone is “ethical” in their own way. If this belief system is true, and right and wrong is according to each individual person, then there really isn’t a field of ethics at all.
Ethical relativism is similar to ethical subjectivism; only it applies to cultures, not just the individual. It’s the view that ethical truth is relative to cultures or societies. It too goes against the belief of universal, ethical truth; whatever a culture believes is correct, is correct for them. Right and wrong vary depending on the culture. There is no ultimate standard. So things such as incest and abortion can be right to one culture, but wrong to another culture; both are correct according to their own standard. As long as that culture is doing things according to their scale of right and wrong, then we ought not to judge them.
Though it is a useful tool for the politician in that they are able to stay politically correct, and to seemingly stray away from verbal judgment, this world-view is also flawed. In this belief system it’s the majority rule that determines what is right, but if the minority grows and then becomes the minority, what was once right is now wrong, and vice versa.
Both of the above systems throw moral purpose and the study of ethics out the window. It sounds nice in theory, but if there truly no universal truths, and therefore no gold-standard of an ethical system to live by, then we have no reason to criticize agendas similar to Hitler’s, Stalin’s, or Chairman Mao’s. We couldn’t argue anything morally about slavery, genocide, or the marginalization of a religious group. This line of thinking distorts social reform along the beliefs of a majority rule. If you’re in the minority, then you’re wrong (unless the minority grows into the majority and then right is wrong, or the opposite). Not to mention both world-views hold self-defeating arguments. Both world-views teach that there are no truth claims that are valid universally, however, the claim that there is no universal truth is itself a universal truth claim. Therefore logically, the argument falls apart.
For a field of ethics to exist, we need to presuppose ethical objectivism, the belief that there are universal and objectively valid moral principles, in our worldview. If we hold to ethical subjectivism, and/or ethical relativism, then we would have no morals whatsoever, nor could we even begin to argue for social progress. It would be permissible without grounds for contention to have slavery, genocide, racial bigotry, mutilation, etc. We must understand that there are universal and valid moral principles that do hold true across every culture. Just because something feels right, doesn’t mean it is right. You must have good reasoning behind a moral decision, and the same goes with ethical reasoning. There needs to be thought, discussion, reflection, and the allowance for criticism amongst cultures and peoples to get to the bottom of what is truly right and wrong. This is why the study of ethics is an important role in overall life; it allows us to analyze right and wrong in order to progress harmoniously as fellow humans.