I know I'm pumping links, wardog, but I going to give another because it's a bit more clear and I'm assuming you'll listen to it since it comes from a skeptic web site.
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/SubjectivismDefinition: "Subjectivism, also called moral relativism, is popularly defined as the moral theory that any moral opinion is as good as any other. Philosophers use the term "subjectivism" to refer to a range of ethical theories that deny that moral inquiry can yield objective truths"
That means Japanese soldiers tossing babies and spearing them with their bayonet in WWII would not be factually evil. If you feel it was evil that is a statement about you. If they felt it was good fun then that is a statement about them. But no real act of evil, or good, was committed.
This site says what I notice in materialists. Most people do not understand moral relativism. They were may have been taught a bastard version leaving a mistaken impression.
<quote> "Moral relativism is a commonly held belief - mostly by people who do not fully understand the theory. [...] I present a hypothesis as to the cause of many people's belief in moral relativism. It is a fairly common goal in education today to teach young people to be accepting of other people and cultures that are different from their own, and this is an exceedingly admirable goal. To achieve this one must prevent naive youths from making hasty moral judgments (including simple moral judgments concerning manners and everyday customs) about other cultures. It is easy to prevent young people from being judgmental in this way by teaching them that they cannot make (i.e., are not allow to make or are not justified in making) moral judgments about other cultures. This blanket prohibition on cross-cultural judgment has the positive effect of making people more tolerant of other cultures, but it has the unfortunate negative effect of indoctrinating people with an incorrect conception of morality. (Though it would be harder to teach, it would be best to teach people that although there are objective moral facts, that we should still be very accepting of other cultures, since truly bad cultures are rare.) [...]
Individual relativism may come from a similar source. People have a desire to get along with others, and real disagreements about serious moral issues can really keep people from getting along. However, if two people are moral relativists, then it does not matter what each of them believes morally, because it is impossible for them to really disagree. Each of them can say, "Well, that's your opinion, but it's not my opinion - and we are both entitled to our moral opinions." The subtext here is that two people are refusing to behave as though they have a moral disagreement - even though they really do disagree. ... As far as morality is concerned, subjectivists argue, there are really no explicit moral "facts", and that no one is ever "right" or "wrong"; all expressions that any particular behavior is moral or immoral is really nothing more than saying how one personally feels about the issue. As no one's feelings are any more correct than anyone else's, it could be said that when people disagree about morality, they merely have different feelings.<end quote>
<quote>
As subjectivism is an often misunderstood moral theory (and you wardog certainly misunderstand it), there are several misconceptions associated with its claims: Subjectivism is often very popular because it appears to imply a certain level of tolerance - such as in the way that we should be tolerant of others who disagree with us, that everyone has a right to believe whatever they wish without having to be dictated what sort of things they should believe. This line of reasoning is often followed by the statement that no members of a community have the right to impose their moral values on any other members of a community.
However, the subtle mistake in that kind of thinking is that the idea "we should be tolerant of other views" is itself a moral judgment, and subjectivism does not prescribe any moral judgments. Subjectivism says nothing about which particular stance we should adopt in terms of tolerating others; it only says that whatever stance a person takes will be nothing more than an expression of his or her personal feelings about tolerating dissenting opinions." <end quote>
Now to illustrate with example: <quote> " The most common criticism of subjectivism rests on the idea that, if subjectivism were true, there would be no way to account for disagreements about morality. An explanation for what this means is supplied in the essay "Subjectivism" by James Rachels:
[A] serious problem is that simple subjectivism [the theory that moral claims are nothing more that expressions of opinion or attitude] cannot account for the fact that people disagree about ethics. George Bush says that abortion is immoral. Betty Friedan, author of The Feminist Mystique and a leading feminist thinker, denies this, saying that abortion is not immoral. Plainly, Mr. Bush and Ms. Friedan disagree. But consider what simple subjectivism implies about the situation:
According to simple subjectivism, when Mr. Bush says that abortion is immoral, he is merely making a statement about his attitude - he is saying that he, George Bush, disapproves of abortion. Would Ms. Friedan disagree with that? No, she would agree that Mr. Bush disapproves of abortion. At the same time, when she says that abortion is not immoral, she is only saying that she, Betty Friedan, does not disapprove of it. And why should Mr. Bush disagree with that? In fact, Mr. Bush would certainly acknowledge that Friedan does not disapprove of abortion. Thus, according to simple subjectivism, there is no disagreement between them - each would acknowledge the truth of what the other is saying! Surely, though, there is something wrong here, for surely Bush and Friedan do disagree about whether abortion is immoral.
There is a kind of eternal frustration implied by simple subjectivism: Bush and Friedan are deeply opposed to one another; yet, they cannot even state their positions in a way that joins the issue. Friedan may try to deny what Bush says, by denying that abortion is immoral, but according to simple subjectivism she only succeeds in changing the subject. (Rachels, p. 435 - 436)" <end quote>
In that illustration, both Bush and Friedan actually reject moral subjectivism on philosophical grounds and in imply they believe in moral realism. They both believe in moral facts. They only disagree about what those facts are. The major difference though is that Bush self admits to being a moral realist while Friedan was a so-called admitted moral relativist. She was not.
Scott
Author
Topic: Thou Shall not Murder or Kill? (Read 4998 times)