Explain the distinction between moral subjectivism and moral objectivism.

Moral subjectivism and moral objectivism are two contrasting positions within the field of metaethics, which is concerned with the nature and foundations of ethics. These positions offer different perspectives on the nature of moral truths and the basis for moral judgments.

Moral subjectivism, also known as moral relativism, holds that moral judgments are subjective and vary from person to person or culture to culture. According to this view, moral statements are not objectively true or false, but rather reflect individual or cultural preferences, attitudes, or opinions. In other words, moral subjectivism asserts that moral judgments are based on personal feelings, emotions, or subjective experiences, and there are no universally valid moral principles.

One common form of moral subjectivism is individual subjectivism, which argues that moral judgments are solely determined by an individual's personal beliefs, desires, or emotions. According to this view, there are no objective moral standards that apply universally to all individuals. Instead, moral judgments are seen as expressions of personal preferences or subjective attitudes.

Cultural relativism is another form of moral subjectivism, which posits that moral judgments are relative to specific cultures or societies. According to this view, moral values and principles are shaped by cultural norms, traditions, and practices. Different cultures may have different moral codes, and there is no objective standard by which to judge one culture's moral values as superior or inferior to another's.

On the other hand, moral objectivism asserts that moral judgments are objective and independent of individual beliefs, emotions, or cultural contexts. It holds that there are moral truths that exist independently of human opinions or preferences. According to moral objectivism, moral statements can be objectively true or false, and there are universal moral principles that apply to all rational beings.

One prominent form of moral objectivism is ethical realism, which argues that moral facts exist in the world and can be discovered through reason or empirical investigation. Ethical realists believe that moral truths are objective and independent of human subjectivity. They argue that moral judgments can be grounded in facts about the nature of human beings, the consequences of actions, or the principles of justice.

Another form of moral objectivism is ethical naturalism, which holds that moral properties are reducible to natural properties. Ethical naturalists argue that moral facts can be understood in terms of naturalistic explanations, such as evolutionary biology or neuroscience. They believe that moral truths can be discovered through scientific inquiry and empirical evidence.

In summary, the distinction between moral subjectivism and moral objectivism lies in their views on the nature of moral truths and the basis for moral judgments. Moral subjectivism asserts that moral judgments are subjective and vary from person to person or culture to culture, while moral objectivism posits that moral judgments are objective and independent of individual beliefs or cultural contexts.