Understanding the Differences between Moral Objectivism and Ethical Subjectivism/Relativism

Explain the difference between Moral Objectivism and Ethical Subjectivism/Relativism

Moral Objectivism – The view that there are at least some moral facts that are true regardless of people’s beliefs. Ethical Subjectivism/Relativism – To say that moral norms are subjective; implies there are no moral facts and that right and wrong are determined on the individual level or by what culture believes.

Moral objectivism is the philosophical view that there are objective moral truths, which are independent of individual beliefs, opinions, and cultural norms. This means that certain actions and their consequences are inherently right or wrong, regardless of personal, cultural, or historical context. For example, it is universally wrong to commit murder or steal from another person because these actions violate a fundamental moral principle that is universally accepted.

Ethical subjectivism/relativism, on the other hand, is the philosophical view that moral truths are subjective or relative to individual perspectives, cultural norms, or historical contexts. Therefore, there are no objective moral truths and what is right or wrong depends on the individual or group that is evaluating that moral claim. For example, in some cultures, it may be acceptable to engage in cannibalism, while in others, such an act is universally considered to be immoral.

The main difference between these two views is that moral objectivism affirms the existence of objective moral truths, whereas ethical subjectivism/relativism denies their existence by claiming that moral standards are subjective or relative to particular individuals or cultures. This means that moral objectivism provides a universal standard for assessing moral claims, while ethical subjectivism/relativism argues that different moral standards are equally valid and can coexist without contradictions.

More Answers: