Metaethical subjective relativism

[Mudhammam]

Briefly, metaethical subjective relativism (MESR) is the position that statements about ethics are true or false only relative to the subjective, i.e. the properties of minds, either the mind of an individual or statistical properties of the minds of a group of individuals. In other words, it is a category error to ascribe the properties "good" and "bad" directly or inherently to actions, events, or states of affairs (in the same sense that mass and size are intrinsic properties of the Earth); instead, "good" and "bad" coherently refer only to the relation of minds to actions, etc.

Note that MESR is not the idea (sometimes called ethical subjectivism or intuitionism) that properties of minds create, determine, or provide an epistemic basis for believing that actions, etc. intrinsically have ethical properties. MESR is instead the idea that our linguistic habit of using the predicate copula (X is good/bad) to relate properties to actions, etc. (e.g. killing people is bad) is at best a metaphor, and at worst an error.

The basic argument is first that subjective relativism is positively demonstrable: people with minds do in fact have ethical relationships to actions, etc.: we approve and disapprove of certain actions and states of affairs. Second, to go beyond subjective relativism requires an epistemic system that either begs the questions, i.e. assumes as premises what is at issue, or fails to find a scientific evidentiary basis. Essentially, statements of the form (X is good/bad) meant literally are unfalsifiable.

This opening is obviously considerably oversimplified. I am happy to clarify and expand on my position on request, and you can visit my eponymous blog and click on the obvious tag to read my writing on this subject in more detail.

I'm looking at the argument you present here; it's true that knowledge or sentiments of "good" and "bad" only exist in the minds of individuals who ascribe these qualities to certain actions and events, but that doesn't demonstrate that statements about the "good" and the "bad" are devoid of content that is objectively true or false. Have you not, to the contrary, simply begged the question yourself?