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.
Very surprised that this is what they teach in college today. I fought in Southeast Asia. Ethics, are what an enemy wants you to engage in while they remain in a denied state of unrestricted warfare.
Cannibals. My family threw the cannibals out of Europe, and those that did not run fast enough were killed. My bloodline has some very strong positions on cannibals. Maybe when you see the world for what it’s worth you will realize that we all must have personal convictions that guard against bipedal animals that walk upright, but are animals, and not humans.
Maybe I misunderstand you?
Regarding Syria, America does not need to get on the side of al-Qaeda, and we do not need America’s heritage and traditions damaged. The US Congress is drafting a proposal to return the Military Draft. All men and women, ages 18 through 42 will be affected. In the event that you are drafted and do go into combat, remember what I tell you. It’s okay to learn in school, but you need to think and make determinations on your own about many things. Everyone you come in contact with overseas is not some quintessential person, they are the enemy, and waiting to slit your throat the very first moment you slip up. If any of them are cannibals, the only answer to that is to eradicate them completely.
The only ethics that matter, are your own. How you apply them or negate them will be something you need to figure out on your own.
It was nice visiting your page, but I seem to not fully understand your drift.
Best of Luck with your blog.
Nice essay, and I agree that subjectivism and relativism are non-starters. Now, it’s just a matter of which–if any–moral theory you think is correct. Utilitarianism, deontological ethics, “virtue ethics” and divine command theory all have crippling logical problems, both in their derivation and in their application.
Have you looked into the philosophy of Objectivism, as defined by Ayn Rand? Have you read Atlas Shrugged? I have some short notes about Objectivist ethics here: The Morality of Rational Egoism: Short Notes.