Subjectivism and Relativism.

Read the first three chapters of ‘Moral Relativism- A Dialogue’ by J. Kellenberger

and answer the following questions:

1) What is (standard) subjectivism?

Standard subjectivism makes morality relative to each individual. Its basic

claims are that, first, what the individual feels or believes, or chooses, makes
what she or he does right, and, second, the individual’s feelings or beliefs or
choices make it right for her or him, but not for the next person. If, say, joining
the Army is right for a particular person, then it is right for him, and of course
if he feels it is wrong, then it is wrong for him. But it is the feelings of the next
person, or his beliefs or choices, that will make joining the Army right or wrong
for him. Subjectivists can be tempted to do what they want to do when they
know it is wrong because it is not what they feel is right. Subjectivism is a view
about the nature of morality—what makes our actions right or wrong—not a
view on the law and what makes our actions legal or illegal. The most a
subjectivist can say is that when he or she sees that his or her action would
hurt someone, then he or she begins to feel it is wrong and that feeling makes
it wrong for him or her to do it. Here, morality is relative to the individual,
determined by his or her beliefs or feelings or choices—some personal
attitude.For subjectivism, individuals create their own moral values by choices,
feelings, or beliefs or by some individual attitude, and an individual’s created values
determine what is morally right or wrong for that individual.

2) What is cultural moral relativism?

What people like and what people value can vary from one culture to another.
And sometimes what people in one culture like or value is found to be repulsive in
another society. Things that are valued in some cultures can be seen as
odd, upsetting, or even deeply repulsive in other cultures. Moral rightness
and wrongness are relative to cultures or societies. Morality is relative to
cultures as in cultures etermine very much from how people in a culture dress,
how they season their food, how directions from one place to another are
given, the musical scale used in the culture, how gender is understood, and
so on. Cultures determine not just these values but their own moralities as
well. societies or cultures “set up” their own values, and that the values “set
up” by a society then provide a guide for that society. Herskovits called this
view “cultural relativism.” As it applies to morality it is “cultural moral
relativism,” and it says that, first, societies or cultures “set up” or define their
moral values; and, second, a culture’s values determine what is right and
wrong within that culture, but not outside it. In cultural moral relativism,
societies or cultures create their own moral values or codes, and their created
 values determine what is right or wrong for the members of a particular
society.

3) Is Kellenberger's arguments against these two doctrines good enough?

Kellenberger’s arguments against these doctrines are good enough as shown

below:
If subjectivism is chaotic in the sense that it rules out any role for reasoned
discourse to address moral disagreements, so is cultural moral relativism.
subjectivism gives no place to reasoned discourse when there is moral
disagreement, if it allows for moral disagreement at all; but cultural moral
relativism is also chaotic in this sense. subjectivism does not provide
guidance and regularity in our lives, while following the moral code of one’s
society does. cultural moral relativism seems preferable here. cultural moral
relativism has this advantage over subjectivism. Pursuing any one of our de-
sires may not be right for subjectivism because there is a difference between
desiring something and feeling or believing that it is right. Cultural moral
relativism answers this concern because we can often be certain about what
our culture’s moral attitudes are, and following the moral dictates of our
culture is distinguishable from following our own desires. What our culture
says is right and our personal desires might often diverge, so here too
subjectivism and cultural moral relativism seem to be parallel. In subjectivism,
if individuals could somehow change their moral feelings or beliefs, so that
they came to feel that what they desired was all right after all, then, it would in
that instant become right for them. Individuals’ changing their minds about
how they feel or what they believe is right is a psychological matter. Maybe
they could talk themselves into it. To change what is morally right or morally
allowable, given what cultural moral relativism says, is a lot harder. One would
have to change one’s culture’s moral attitude, and that is a bigger task than
just changing one’s mind. There is more moral stability provided by the
cultural form of moral relativism than by subjectivism.. A point against cultural
moral relativism was made by attacking the basic idea of cul tural moral
relativism that is our culture determines what is right and wrong for us.
However, cultural moral relativism can provide no basis on which to decide
which culture to follow. It cannot tell us to follow the culture that directs us to
the right action. This would concede that there is some test or standard for
moral rightness over and above what cultures say.

4) What is your take on subjectivism and moral relativism?

From what I’ve understood, Subjectivism seems to be saying that there are no
objective moral truths or facts out there. It reflects the close relationship between
morality and people's feelings and opinions – and copes with the contradictory moral
views we often find ourselves wrestling with. It reflects the evaluative elements of
moral statements and make judgements. Subjectivism helps in the communication of
approval and disapproval that seems to go along with the everyday making of
judgements. subjectivism enables people disagreeing over the rightness or
wrongness of some issue to see that the real dispute is not about objective truth but
about their own preferences and about trying to persuade their opponent to adopt
their point of view. But, Subjectivism also has its problems: subjectivism seems to
imply that moral statements are less significant than most people think they are, that
they give information only about what we feel about moral issues.

MORAL RELATIVISM:
Moral relativism stresses on the premise that moral judgments are true or false only relative to
some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no
standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. moral relativism seems to promote tolerance since
it encourages us to understand other cultures on their own terms. Relativists seem to exaggerate the
degree of diversity among cultures since superficial differences often mask underlying shared
agreements. It also seems that they keep inconsistently claiming that there are no universal moral
norms and that everything differs across cultures.