Problem:
You are the writer of an ethics column for your local newspaper. A reader submitted a letter with some thoughts on ethical relativism and subjectivism. In your main post, respond to the reader based on your understanding of ethical relativism and subjectivism. Do you agree with the reader or not? Explain your reasoning as if you were writing your ethics column. Dear Ethics Column, I have always felt that ethical/cultural relativism was an extremely weak philosophy and theory to make moral decisions. If every culture is the sole arbiter of what's right for it, that means no culture can actually be wrong. It means Nazi culture actually was right, for the people living in that culture. In order to bring positive change, we must be able to critically analyze what is objectively right and wrong. Moral subjectivism gives us no opportunity to bring about change because ethics (right and wrong) is ever evolving based on the opinions and attitudes of each individual or group of individuals. So if we truly follow these ideas, we can't say anything about anything. I just can't get on board with the idea that there are no moral truths only moral attitudes and opinions.