Cultural relativism and ethical objectivism
It should be noted that moral subjectivism is an ideology that holds that morality is based on an individual. The culture, customs, norms do not play a role in this type of subjectivity. Instead, an individual is the only person who decides what is right from what is wrong. In this case, morals are subject, and they depend on feelings, tastes, and opinions. For instance, if a volunteer sees it right to carry some of the donations home, then he or she is right since that is what they believe is right, that is their moral subjectivism. Moral subjectivism disagrees with the absolute standards of what is right and wrong. The subjective individual is deemed as the stick that measures what is moral and immoral. The difference between moral objectivism and moral subjectivism is that moral objectivism argues that there is a set of principles that should be adhered to that define morality. Ethical subjectivism, as contended by Hemingway, one feels good after doing a moral act and feels terrible after taking part in an immoral act. In this case, for example, if a robber plans and robs a place, he feels good that he has seceded, does this make it a moral act, because the individual felt good after the law? In this case, the famous saying of one man’s meat is poison to another is best in describing the ethical subjectivism believers.
Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is the belief that the ideas and their practices are best understood based on the culture that a particular individual belongs to. This type of relativism, the culture, is the measuring stick of morality among individuals. I agree with the fact that cultural relativism is not specific. The world is made of very many diverse cultures that are different from each other. So many cultures disagree on many various issues. Cultural relativism does not give definite learning in which morality should be based on. It leaves the world to decide on themselves on which culture is more moral than the other. The world today consists of passionate disagreement. In this case, it is conflicting to determine what truth is right and what wrong is immoral; thus, confusing the moral claims made by different communities. This, in addition to ethnocentrism, makes it difficult to standardize moral absolutes. For instance, some cultures believe that cancer is hereditary; some think it is witchcraft; other believe environmental factors cause it. In this case, there is no standard cause of disease, does it mean that cancer has no purpose? This is the specificity that cultural relativism does not have.
In this case, I agree with my colleagues on the issues of cultural relativism and ethical objectivism. It should be noted that our society is multicultural. This means that the differences among us are more pronounced compared to the similarities in our cultures. In this case, this aspect can be of advantage and disadvantage. A position in that relativism can encourage acceptance of differences and help in reducing conflicts among cultures.
On the other hand, the disadvantage is that it causes aggravated disagreements and increases the levels of hostility among cultures. Besides, cultures are diverse, and they change. In this case, a moral act i8n the 1990s is different from that in the 21st century — for instance, the case of the gender roles.