Subjectivism, Relativism, Objectivism
Introduction
What is really the basis of a morally good act? What if in
one country, bribery is considered immoral, while in
another country it is socially acceptable? What if
abortion is legal and ethical in one country, while
punishable for being a crime in another country? What
are the criteria used to determine the rightness or
wrongness of an action? Because of these crucial
questions that may affect the decisions of people, it has
become worthwhile for many ethicists to discuss the
philosophical/ethical theories known as:
1. Subjectivism
2. Relativism
3. Objectivism
Subjectivism
~ asserts that the basis of the goodness or badness of
an act is the human agent himself—the one who decides
to act, the subject of action
~ asserts that moral judgments are really feelings, not
facts, that there are no right or wrong answers, and each
person is entitled to his or her own views
~ comes from the belief that every individual has his or
her own set of experiences that forms his or her moral
values
~ what is good for one person may not be good for the
other person
~ individuals need not to justify or explain their decisions
or actions to anyone, since it is their subjective choice
~ one cannot argue with the differences in taste or
judgment of beauty, not with judgments pertaining to
moral rightness and goodness
~ such that a cake which tastes good to me may taste
bad to you, we must also accept that goodness and
rightness is a matter of subjective taste
~ Illustration: Mrs. Reyes, a veteran businesswoman,
believes that tax evasion is morally justifiable. On the
other hand, Mr. Cruz, a neophyte businessman, is
convinced that tax evasion is morally unacceptable.
Now, as far as ethical subjectivism is concerned, Mr.
Cruz cannot declare that Mrs. Reyes does an immoral
act. What Mr. Cruz can validly say is that Mrs. Reyes’ act
of evading taxes is immoral according to his moral norm.
~ Disadvantages: Ethical subjectivism appears to
endorse human freedom from the dictates of the
authority, tradition, religion, and others. Consequently,
the moral agent becomes fully responsible for his or her
actions. Furthermore, ethical subjectivism also seems to
endorse the value of respect and tolerance toward
another person’s opinions, tastes, personal decisions,
and actions. After all, who are we to judge the morality
of another person?
~ Societal codes and rules of conduct are formed and
agreed upon by people because there are assumed to
ensure harmony, order, and peaceful coexistence. But
ethical subjectivism invites the opposite: anarchy, chaos,
fighting, mistrust, violence, and “a war of all against all.”
It is a sure formula for a chaotic society. Therefore, it is
contrary to the noble aims of societal life—to have a
peaceful and harmonious coexistence.
~ Most ethicists reject subjectivism because it assumes
that there are no basic goods that need to be protected
in society and because it utilizes a logic that is ultimately
incapable of offering compelling arguments against
abuses. If we were truly subjectivists, we would have to
merely accept it if someone were to take our property,
inflict physical harm on us or those we care about, or
break their promises. Furthermore, subjectivism makes
it very difficult to resolve disputes, as it denies the
compelling power of reasonable discourse with others,
arguing instead that what is right for others may not be
right for them. If there is no reason to believe that some
ethical arguments are better than others or that better
arguments should prevail and inform our decisions and
actions, then there is also no reason why individuals
should not simply do as they like.
Relativism
Cultural relativism – a descriptive claim that ethical
practices differ among cultures, that, as a matter of fact,
what is considered right in one culture may be
considered wrong in another culture; descriptive
because it means that the claims of cultural relativism
are not based on speculations and prescriptions for
moral behavior, but are rather anchored on direct
observations of the undeniable differences of mores,
practices, legal codes, and ethical beliefs of various
societies and cultures
Illustration: Here in the Philippines, premarital sex is
unacceptable. However, in most western countries, it is
normal; Here in the Philippines, we do not cease to
debate on the moral acceptability of artificial
contraceptives. In another country, abortion is perfectly
normal, more so on the use of artificial contraceptives;
One culture punishes its offenders by stoning him or her
to death, while another culture finds this morally
objectionable; Capital punishment is legal and
considered ethical in one country, while it is illegal and
morally unacceptable in the Philippines.
It is undeniable that that there are differences with
regard to the culture, mores, practices, beliefs, and even
the moral thinking of people.
Ethical Relativism – the logical result of the results of
cultural relativism, and that culture is that which decides
the rightness or wrongness of one’s conduct; the claim
that what is really right or wrong is what the culture says
is right or wrong; claims that it is morally obligatory to act
in accordance with the basic moral principles adopted
by a certain culture; “when in Rome, do as the Romans
do”; one has to abide by the ethical norms of the culture
where one is located; suggests that if one is in doubt
whether his or her action is morally acceptable, he or she
should check whether the said act is acceptable in the
particular society where he or she is in; however, though
moral relativists accept cultural relativism as true, they
claim much more.
Illustration: If bribery is acceptable in one society,
then it is morally right; if not, then it is morally wrong. If
business bribery or tax evasion becomes customary in
the society, then the moral rebel cannot criticize it
because rightness and wrongness are determined by
the culture.
In an article “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”
by Rachels (2010):
1. Various societies have various ethical beliefs and
codes
2. There are no moral principles that are common in all
societies
3. Moral standards are not moral absolutes. They are
dependent on the evolving and dynamic nature of
the society’s cultures, beliefs, and practices
4. There are no objective moral values. The society
determines what is good and what is bad within its
particular society.
5. It also follows that there is no privileged and special
culture that other cultures would look up to, emulate
and immolate.
6. Every culture is unique unto itself.
7. No society can brag about its morality. There is no
morally inferior culture; there is simple difference.
Weaknesses of Cultural Relativism
However, deeper analysis of cultural relativism would
reveal that the said theory is not without inherent
problems. Rachels sees that there is a serious lapse in
the reasoning of the ethical relativist when it concludes
that there is no objective truth in ethics merely from the
fact that there are disagreements about and differences
in moral beliefs, moral codes, and moral practices. When
two people disagree about something, it does not follow
at once that both of them are correct or both of them are
wrong. When it comes to moral belief, it is possible that
one belief is correct and the other one is misguided.
Rachel explains:
“The fact that different societies have different moral
codes proves nothing. There is also disagreement from
society to society about scientific matters: in some
cultures, it is believed that the earth is flat, and that
disease is caused by evil spirits. We do not on that
account conclude that there is no truth in geography or
in medicine. Instead, we conclude that in some cultures,
people are better informed than in others. Similarly,
disagreement in ethics might signal nothing more than
that some people are less enlightened than others. At
the very least, the fact of disagreement does not, by
itself, entail that truth does not exist. Why should we
assume that, if ethical truth exists, everyone must know
it.”
Georges Enderle (2005): “Cultural diversity does not
necessarily mean ethical relativism.”
Weaknesses of Ethical relativism:
1. It makes an illogical leap of concluding that there are
no objective principles simply because there are
cultural differences.
2. It is possible that differences in moral practices are
just apparent and even rooted in principles that are
also valued in other cultures.
3. There are some incoherent effects if we will espouse
ethical relativism as our guiding principle.
Objectivism
~ maintains that there are moral principles that have
universal validity regardless of time, place, and culture
~ claims that morality is neither subjective or culturally
relative, but rather objective in the sense that there are
ethical principles that are common in all societies
Illustration: Objectivism claims that every society and
culture agree that the torture and murder of the innocent
are morally unacceptable. It is important to remember
that if accused of these acts no contrary would reply by
saying that there is nothing wrong with it. Its leaders
would simply reply by saying that there is nothing wrong
with it. Its leaders would simply deny it or point an
accusing finger to other leaders who commit the same
acts.
Rachels (2010) also argues that there are some values
common to all cultures and thus render moral
objectivism to be the more feasible theory. He
enumerates and explains at lease three of those values:
1. Care for the offspring
Imagine a community that does not require the
parents to care for their children. This community
will not continue to exist because the very survival is
dependent on the fundamental value of propagation
and transmission of its kind. This means that any
culture that continues to exist must care for its
young.
2. Truth-telling
Imagine a society whose members are not governed
by truth-telling. They may talk with each other but,
surely, they will not trust each other’s words.
Communication would eventually become
meaningless. The members of the society would find
relationships as useless. The society would finally
disintegrate. Thus, “communicate truthfully” is a
moral standard that is common to all societies.
3. Prohibition against murder
Imagine if a society does not prohibit killing of its
members. It will be a chaotic society and bound to
extinction. In other words, it will not survive.
Therefore, “do not kill” is a moral precept that is not
relative to a culture; rather, it is objective and
common to all cultures. The prohibition against
murder is a necessary feature of a society.
Conclusion
The rightness or wrongness of an act ultimately lies on
universal ethical principles that humanity has
discovered, developed, and cultivated for it to survive, to
have meaningful existence, and to form a more humane
community of persons. One of the aims of business
ethics is to discover, apply, and improve objective moral
principles so that a businessperson who goes from one
culture to the other may find the right balance between
objectivity of values and respect toward another culture.