Subjective Relativism

Ethics for the Information Age Chapter 2: Introduction to Ethics Subjective Relativism Relativism is the theory that there are no universal moral norms of right and wrong. According to this theory, different individuals or groups of people can have completely opposite views of a moral problem, and both can be right. Two particular kinds of relativism we’ll discuss are subjective relativism and cultural relativism. Subjective relativism holds that each person decides right and wrong for himself or herself. This notion is captured in the popular expression, “What’s right for you may not be right for me.” The Case for Subjective Relativism 1. Well-meaning and intelligent people can have totally opposite opinions about moral issues. For example, consider the issue of legalized abortion in the United States. There are a significant number of rational people on each side of the issue. Subjective relativists would contend that the reason people cannot reach the same conclusion is that morality is not like gravity; it is not something “out there” that rational people can discover and try to understand. Instead, each of us creates his or her own morality. 2. Ethical debates are disagreeable and pointless. Going back to the example of abortion, the debate in the United States has been going on for more than 40 years. An agreement about whether abortion is right or wrong may never be reached. Nobody is all-knowing. When faced with a difficult moral problem, who is to say which side is correct? If morality is relative, we do not have to try to reconcile opposing views. Both sides are right. The Case against Subjective Relativism 1. With subjective relativism the line between doing what you think is right and doing what you want to do is not sharply drawn. People are good at rationalizing their bad behavior. Subjective relativism provides an ideal last line of defense for someone whose conduct is being questioned. When pressed to explain a decision or action, a subjective relativist can reply, “Who are you to tell me what I should and should not do?” If morality means doing whatever you want to do, it doesn’t mean much, if it means anything at all. 2. By allowing each person to decide right and wrong for himself or herself, subjective relativism makes no moral distinction between the actions of different people. The fact is that some people have caused millions to suffer, while others have led lives of great service to humanity. Suppose both Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa spent their entire lives doing what they thought was the right thing to do. Do you want to give both of them credit for living good lives? A modification of the original formulation of subjective relativism might be, “I can decide what’s right for me, as long as my actions don’t hurt anybody else.” That solves the problem of Adolf Hitler versus Mother Teresa. However, as soon as you introduce the idea that you shouldn’t harm others, you must come to an agreement with others about what it means to harm someone. At this point the process is no longer subjective or completely up to the individual. In other words, a statement of the form, “I can decide what’s right for me, as long as my actions don’t hurt anyone else,” is inconsistent with subjective relativism. 3. Subjective relativism and tolerance are two different things. Some people may be attracted to relativism because they believe in tolerance. There is a lot to be said for tolerance. It allows individuals in a pluralistic society like the United States to live in harmony. However, tolerance is not the same thing as subjective relativism. Subjective relativism holds that individuals decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. If you are a tolerant person, is it okay with you if some people decide they want to be intolerant? What if a person decides that he will only deal fairly with people of his own racial group? Note that any statement of the form, “People ought to be tolerant,” is an example of a universal moral norm, or rule. Relativism is based on the idea that there are no universal moral norms, so a blanket statement about the need for tolerance is incompatible with subjective relativism. 4. We should not give legitimacy to an ethical theory that allows people to make decisions based on something other than reason. If individuals decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, they can reach their conclusions by any means they see fit. They may choose to base their decisions on something other than logic and reason, such as the rolling of dice or the turning of tarot cards. This path is contrary to using logic and reason. If your goal is to persuade others that your solutions to actual moral problems are correct, adopting subjective relativism is self-defeating because it is based on the idea that each person decides for himself or herself what is right and what is wrong. According to subjective relativism, nobody’s conclusions are any more valid that anyone else’s, no matter how these conclusions are drawn. Therefore, we reject subjective relativism as a workable ethical theory