Moral Reltivism Essay

696 Words3 Pages
In the book “Moral Matters,” Chapter One, Jan Narveson writes about the two theories in morality: moral relativism and subjectivism. These theories work together to define the concept of Morality, by helping to solve our moral dilemmas, such as to explain the reasoning behind our ability to choose between right and wrong, in establishing how and why we make this choice. Thus, through these theories, we further explore morality between the connection to society and the individual, as well as determining what they have in common. Moral relativism represents the view that there are no objective ethical truths, that moral facts only hold relative to a given individual or society. According to this theory, what is morally good for one person or culture might be morally bad for another, and vice versa: there are no moral absolutes. There is also an individual form of moral relativism. Thus, this is where morality varies between individuals, it is called subjectivism. Subjectivism, on the other hand, involves our beliefs or perceptions, in figuring out what is good and what is bad. Narveson explains subjectivity through morals, which he believes to be “subjective.” Narveson believes that “they are merely a “matter of opinion,” there being no such thing as moral knowledge, nothing about can be really correct or incorrect” (Narveson, MM, p. 3).Thus, whether peanut butter tastes good, for example, varies from person to person; for some people this is true, for others it is false. Whether peanut butter tastes good, then, is a subjective matter. Subjectivism is egalitarian that it seems to takes everyone’s judgment to be as good as everyone else’s. Thus, as long as individuals believe in the actions or choices that they are making, they can do no wrong. Narveson describes this as a “matters of taste,” in his explanation of morality (Narveson, MM, p.3). This is where one
Open Document