Subjectivism
Individual Ethical Relativism
Individual Relativism / Subjectivism
● Two Core Elements
○ The view that there are noobjectiveoruniversalmoral standardsor truths
○ There are only opinions that authorize moral claims
● Two Corollaries
○ People cannot be mistaken about what is right or wrong (provided that they know
what their opinion is on the matter)
○ No legitimate claims can be made on others (from our perspective),since all
others may have their own opinions on the matter
■ This claim is what <attracts= many people to the relativist camp
■ This claim supports a sense of <respecting others= by accepting the
importance of their opinions
The Nature of Opinions
● Opinions (def.): beliefs that are not (or at least need not be)backed up by reason or facts
● Subjectivist Authority:sincere opinions MAKE claims right or wrong
○ Morality is real
■ Moral claims are meaningful
■ It’s not senseless to make moral claims (cf. Emotivism)
○ Opinions ARE the moral standard used to determine what is right and wrong
● Subjectivist Prescriptions: like other ethical theories, there are<oughts=
○ We Ought To: ACT on your own sincere opinions of right and wrong
○ You CAN BE Immoral by being untrue to your own sincere opinions
Relativism(s) vs. Universal Moral Theory
● Key Dispute: the Scope of Authority
○ Moral claims have Authority: a normative force (i.e. the pull of<should= <must=
<can=)
○ Standards (i.e. norms) allow us to evaluate when and to what degree/extent that
normative force applies
○ The Key Q:Who Does this apply to or how far is the scope of this authority?
● What Relativism is NOT (alt. how to read <…based on…=)
○ Simple description of an observable state of affairs
○ Simple description of a fact: people have different beliefs
● The Second Step: Relativism makes a second/bolder claim
○ To claim that THIS difference IS legitimate
Individual Ethical Relativism
Individual Relativism / Subjectivism
● Two Core Elements
○ The view that there are noobjectiveoruniversalmoral standardsor truths
○ There are only opinions that authorize moral claims
● Two Corollaries
○ People cannot be mistaken about what is right or wrong (provided that they know
what their opinion is on the matter)
○ No legitimate claims can be made on others (from our perspective),since all
others may have their own opinions on the matter
■ This claim is what <attracts= many people to the relativist camp
■ This claim supports a sense of <respecting others= by accepting the
importance of their opinions
The Nature of Opinions
● Opinions (def.): beliefs that are not (or at least need not be)backed up by reason or facts
● Subjectivist Authority:sincere opinions MAKE claims right or wrong
○ Morality is real
■ Moral claims are meaningful
■ It’s not senseless to make moral claims (cf. Emotivism)
○ Opinions ARE the moral standard used to determine what is right and wrong
● Subjectivist Prescriptions: like other ethical theories, there are<oughts=
○ We Ought To: ACT on your own sincere opinions of right and wrong
○ You CAN BE Immoral by being untrue to your own sincere opinions
Relativism(s) vs. Universal Moral Theory
● Key Dispute: the Scope of Authority
○ Moral claims have Authority: a normative force (i.e. the pull of<should= <must=
<can=)
○ Standards (i.e. norms) allow us to evaluate when and to what degree/extent that
normative force applies
○ The Key Q:Who Does this apply to or how far is the scope of this authority?
● What Relativism is NOT (alt. how to read <…based on…=)
○ Simple description of an observable state of affairs
○ Simple description of a fact: people have different beliefs
● The Second Step: Relativism makes a second/bolder claim
○ To claim that THIS difference IS legitimate
