Moral Relativism vs Moral Subjectivism (Meta-Ethics)

An explanation of the difference between Moral Relativism and Moral Subjectivism, which are often confused, including a definition of mroal universalism and moral objectivism.

Here are some videos you might enjoy:

Philosophy by Topic:

Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more! (#ethics #metaethics)

[bruce-le-smith]

i think i'm going to have to watch that again a few times. impressively condensed! but also very clear

[Asankeket]

I think moral statements are not truth-apt because "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong" have no meaning without an end. Without an end, without answering "good for what" or "right for what?", these terms are completely devoid of any definable meaning, and so, a moral statement does not mean anything beyond "I (don't) want people doing this or that". In effect, most human groups' morality helps them to survive, it tends to foster group cohesion and relative inward peace, but it does that regardless of whether it's true.

[nickolashessler]

Nice video. Another useful distinction related to the subject of relativism is the one between agent and appraiser relativism

[Dayglodaydreams]

To me, morality is "The Golden Rule" (which occurs in Multiple cultures). "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you"-Jesus of Nazareth. ""Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself."-Confucius (Kung Fu Tzu). Does it occur in every aspect of every culture? No. It is possible for certain sub-cultures to be morally depraved (any criminal subculture). Also, a close reading of those two quotes, and whether they mean the same thing would be an interesting video.

[Dayglodaydreams]

You should cover moral skepticism or ethical skepticism, as well.

[Pfhorrest]

Re "objective relativism" and the holy text, how are the words in the holy text not merely representations of the mental states of its authors? This position is still saying that the thing you ought to do is the thing that somebody says you ought to do, just the somebody in this case is whoever the authors of various holy texts are. How is this different from saying that what you ought to do is whatever somebody or some group of people who stand in some relation to you (your society, your leader, your god, whatever) want you to do, except that we've introduced the written record of their commands as a proxy for what they want?

[williamsimkulet]

Why wouldn't mental states be objective facts about the world? It may be difficult to verify, for example, that Smith intended to drown his cousin for the insurance money, but whether he had the intent is a separate question from whether it's verifiable. Aristotle argued moral responsibility requires awareness and control (although contemporary philosophers usually speak only of control, having folded the two concepts together).

[rparticle]

Can somebody provide an example for "objective universalism" and "subjective relativism"?

[ksastrophy]

Jeffrey Kaplan in his video about Russ Shafer-Landau's map of metaethics proposes another kind of distinction. Are these terms not universally agreed upon, our do I just fail to see the connection?

[christianvanslooten]

Personally, I think the reason why this distinction is often ignored is because when people realize that moral statements are not based on facts, what reason is there to posit their existence? Couldn’t grounding morality in anything other than facts simply be brushed off as arbitrary and therefore not worth considering?

[nardfoo]

hello guys can y'all help me give an explanation qbout this for my reporting in school.

MORAL SUBJECTIVISM
• Moral subjectivism is the belief that what is right or wrong is
determined by an individual’s personal thoughts and feelings.
This means that there are no universal moral principles and
any criticism or argument about morality is invalid.

CULTURAL RELATIVISM
• Cultural Relativism is the belief that what is considered right
or wrong is based on the principles and rules of a particular
culture. This means that different cultures may have different
ideas of morality. We cannot judge the actions of individuals
in other cultures.

[jeremyhansen]

Would consequentialism works as a kind of objective relativism, given that the prescription it gives for each individual depends on the specific circumstances one finds oneself?

[AmorLucisPhotography]

This division gets very messy very quickly, I think. For one thing, every mental state can also be viewed as an objective fact about the world. I am part of the world, and if I think that slavery is a great idea, then it is an *objective* fact about the world (specifically, about me) that I think slavery is a great idea. Every subject can also be viewed as an object, no? Secondly, whether the morality of an action is relative or universal depends on the abstractness of the description. "Do as your Holy book commands you" might seem to be relative assuming that we take it to be picking out some set of commands in some set of (differing) holy books, but it is universal at the more abstract level, since it is a command that applies to everyone. If two people are facing in opposite directions and both follow the command "turn to your left", are they performing different actions? Do they turn in different directions (north vs. south) or the same direction (to their left)? Similarly, everyone may be bound by the same law ("Do as the one God commands"), making it universalist, but the one God may yet command X to do one thing and Y to do something different, making it relativist, if we understand relativism as the view that what is morally right for a person to do differs from one person to another.
You also seem to slide between the idea that relativism is the view that the morality of actions *differ* from one person to another (seen at the beginning), and the view that moral relativism is the view that morality *depends* on who is saying them (seen towards the end). The latter is much more metaethically committal, I think, as it suggests that some aspect of the subject *makes* for those moral differences, not merely that there *are* such moral differences, and so ties relativism far more closely to subjectivism than does your initial characterisation. The example just given of the one true God commanding X to do one thing and Y to do something different seems to satisfy the first characterization of moral relativism, but not so clearly the second characterization, because the difference is not (or need not be) dependent on who is saying it.

[InventiveHarvest]

You should do what makes you happy as long as you do not cause to another what they consider harm. If you do harm someone, you owe them compensation.