The Case Against Moral Relativism. Pojman“Who’s to judge who’s right or wrong?” In the case against moral relativism Pojman provides an analysis of Relativism. His analysis includes an interpretation of Relativism that states the following ideas: Actions vary from society to society, individuals behavior depends on the society they belong to, and there are no standards of living that apply to all human kind. An example that demonstrates these ideas is people around the world eat beef (cows) and in India, cows are not to be eaten. From Pojman second analysis an example can be how the Japanese take of their shoes all the time before entering the house. In Mexico it is rare that people take off their shoes. They might find it wired or not normal. In his third analysis he gives that sense moral relativism and cultural relativism are tied together, that their can be no Pojman writes that morality is nonexistent because of mankind’s subjectivism. Subjectivism is the idea that people determine their own set of morals, and they can not be in the wrong as long as they live by their own standards. Pojman uses the example of Adolph Hitler, and the fact that Hitler could be considered moral in the eyes of subjectivism. If this is true, who are we to say that Hitler was in the wrong.Conventionalism is the only view of ethical relativism that grounds morality in the group or culture. Pojman states that conventionalists focus on the morality of their own culture, and do not need to concentrate on the culture of others. For example, a young individual in the United States who was raised in a certain religion, and chooses to have premarital sex. In the eyes of their religion they are wrong for their decision, but in the open-minded attitude of the U.S. they are not seen as wrong.Pojman gives a critique on ethical relativism and give the impression that he believes all cultures should follow the same basic ...
