Discuss and Evaluate Subjectivist and relativist views on the nature of human act.

Subjectivism and relativism represent distinct philosophical approaches to understanding the nature of human acts, diverging on the question of whether moral values and judgments are grounded in objective standards or are subjective and culturally contingent.

Subjectivism:
Subjectivism asserts that the nature and moral value of human acts are contingent upon individual beliefs, feelings, or attitudes. From a subjectivist standpoint, morality is not rooted in objective, external standards but rather in the subjective experiences and perspectives of individuals. Each person's personal inclinations, emotions, and judgments become the determining factors in evaluating the moral character of an action.

The strengths of subjectivism lie in its recognition of the diversity of human experiences and the importance of individual autonomy in moral decision-making. Subjectivism accommodates the reality that people may hold diverse moral perspectives, allowing for a more inclusive understanding of ethics.

However, subjectivism is not without its critiques. Critics argue that a purely subjective approach can lead to moral relativism, where every perspective is considered equally valid, making it challenging to address moral disagreements or establish shared ethical norms.

Relativism:
Relativism extends the subjectivist perspective beyond the individual to encompass cultural or societal beliefs. Cultural relativism posits that moral values are culturally determined, and what is considered morally acceptable varies across different societies. This view suggests that there are no universal moral truths, and judgments are context-dependent.

Relativism acknowledges the importance of cultural diversity and respects differing ethical systems. It guards against ethnocentrism, recognizing that moral values can vary across cultures and historical periods.

However, critics argue that relativism faces challenges in providing a basis for moral criticism or addressing moral progress. If all moral perspectives are considered equally valid within their respective cultural contexts, there may be a reluctance to condemn practices that violate human rights or ethical principles, as judgments are bound by cultural norms.

Evaluation:
Both subjectivism and relativism contribute valuable insights to the ongoing discourse on the nature of human acts. Subjectivism emphasizes individual autonomy and diversity of perspectives, acknowledging the complexity of moral decision-making. Relativism, on the other hand, highlights the importance of cultural context and the need to appreciate diverse ethical frameworks.

However, the challenges arise when subjectivism leads to moral solipsism, where individuals' opinions become the sole basis for ethical judgments, potentially undermining shared ethical standards. Relativism faces difficulties when addressing cross-cultural moral disagreements or condemning practices that violate fundamental human rights.

In conclusion, the subjectivist and relativist views on the nature of human acts bring attention to the intricate relationship between individual beliefs, cultural contexts, and moral judgments. Striking a balance that recognizes individual autonomy while acknowledging shared ethical principles is crucial for a robust understanding of morality that transcends both pure subjectivism and cultural relativism.