Pojman Argument On Conventionalism Vs Subjectivism

If individuals had no moral values, everyone would be running around without a care in the world and solely worried about themselves. There would be no awareness for anybody or anything so we would turn into selfish human beings. Ethical relativism is “the doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions vary from society to society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times” (Pojman, 14). There are some moral values worldwide that are just adopted overtime and for that I will support Louis Pojman and what he states about ethical relativism being an incoherent theory, how it is much bigger than just individuals or even societies. I strive to hit on conventionalism and subjectivism, which have their up sides but ultimately diminish Pojman’s argument on ethical relativism.
In this section, I will review flawed points in the ideas of conventionalism and subjectivism as Pojman partially disagrees with what these ideas are saying. Subjectivism is defined by “all moral principles are justified by virtue of their …show more content…
Subjectivism is an individualized idea and all principles are right or wrong based on someone’s own ideas therefore there is no room for judgement. Similar to that is conventionalism, which is based on cultural principles as everything must be judged based on that cultures ideas. As stated earlier, they overlap as they both lead to the lack of morality, leaving ethical relativism incoherent. I would completely agree with Pojman as he talks about why ethical relativism cannot fully be supported by either subjectivism or conventionalism. I also agree with Pojman because there are universal values that may not be written down, but have the same meaning worldwide such as killing other people, telling the truth, and stealing. These universal principles go against ethical relativism to make it