Louis Pojman's 'Argument Against Moral Relativism'

In Louis Pojman’s “Argument Against Moral Relativism”, he classifies the three premises for ethical relativism. Those of which include the diversity thesis, the dependency thesis and the final result of ethical relativism. Following his explanation of these three ideals, he goes onto explain as to why each one of them are invalid.

Of the arguments that he provided, I’d consider his justification against the concept of subjectivism. His main argument against this idea is that if it is true, it makes morality a useless concept.

He backs this statement up when he says “Hemingway may feel good about killing bulls in a bullfight, whereas Saint Francis or Mother Teresa would no doubt feel the opposite. No argument about the matter is possible.”

In the paraphrased transcript of a conversation with Bundy he says, “Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other?” (Page 4)

As grotesque as the sociopath’s statement may seem to the standard person, the point that Pojman is trying to prove with this is the fact that at one point the idea of subjectivism ceases to exist; thus, leaving us with the concept of whether something is or isn’t morally correct, which follows suit with his argument that subjectivism is not true because if so, it would result in morality being a useless concept.

2. In order to promote human flourishing, I’d choose kindness as the most ideal universal value. Considering the fact that avoiding acts of violence which include theft, fighting, etc. fall under the ideology of being a ‘good person’, that would be considered a faultless personality. A non-violent person, along with being nice, patient and honest all gather together to assemble an exemplary