When people disagree about what’s right or wrong, is there ever an objective answer—or is ethics just a matter of personal or cultural opinion?
“That’s just your opinion!” If you’ve ever been in an argument about what’s right or wrong, you’ve probably heard this phrase. It often signals frustration—and the sense that ethical debates can’t go anywhere because everyone’s entitled to their own view. But are all ethical claims really just opinions, or is there more to the story?
Some of the most common theories in ethics—subjectivism, cultural relativism, and emotivism—try to explain right and wrong as matters of taste, feeling, or social convention. Many philosophers, however, argue that these theories run into serious trouble. Let’s examine each one in turn and see what happens when we put them under the microscope.
The view that ethical statements are simply expressions of personal opinion or preference, holding no objective truth beyond individual perspectives.
The pizza analogy is a favorite among philosophers to illustrate subjectivism, but it’s also used in debates about art, music, and even sports rivalries!
The idea that ethics is really about opinion may seem obvious. Philosophers call this view subjectivism: the belief that ethical statements are merely statements of personal opinion and nothing more. If all ethical statements are just opinions, then arguing about them is as senseless as arguing about the “best” pizza.
Imagine two friends debating shoplifting. One says, “Shoplifting is right,” meaning “I like shoplifting; it’s okay for me.” The other says, “Shoplifting is wrong,” meaning “I dislike shoplifting; it’s wrong for me.” According to subjectivism, both are correct—for themselves! But does this really make sense for issues with big consequences?
Subjectivism tries to capture the feeling that what’s right and wrong could be radically different for each person. But if that’s so, should we even bother arguing about ethics?
The broader philosophical position that right and wrong are not absolute, but instead are relative to individual or cultural perspectives. Subjectivism is one form of relativism.
Have you ever felt frustrated in an ethical debate because it seemed like you and the other person just had different “tastes”? Did the conversation go anywhere?
Ethical disagreements are just like disagreements about favorite foods or colors—so they can never truly be resolved.
While some ethical debates resemble matters of taste, many involve deeper questions about harm, fairness, or rights that can’t be settled by personal preference alone.
Subjectivists insist that “X is right” just means “X is right for me,” while “X is wrong” means “X is wrong for me.” In this view, saying “I like X” is the same as saying “X is right.”
This leads to some surprising results. If subjectivism were true, you could say that even something like cold-blooded murder is “right for me”—and that would make it so.
If two people disagree about whether shoplifting is right or wrong, what does subjectivism say about their disagreement?
Here’s the issue: if “right” just means “right for me,” then two people who disagree about shoplifting (or anything else) aren’t actually contradicting each other. They’re just stating personal likes and dislikes.
Test your intuition about facts and opinions using these debates:
Subjectivism provides an easy escape from heated ethical debates—but is it a good solution? One reason philosophers are skeptical is that subjectivism implies there’s no real ethical disagreement; everyone’s just expressing their feelings.
Think of a time when people disagreed about a serious ethical issue, like capital punishment or animal rights. Did it feel like just a matter of taste, or something deeper?
Many philosophers argue that ethical debates aren’t only about personal likes or dislikes. People engage in these arguments because they believe there’s more at stake—facts, reasons, or consequences that matter.
Psychologists have found that people often treat morality differently from mere preferences. When participants are asked whether it’s okay for someone in another culture to eat dogs, most say “no”—even if they accept that food preferences differ. This suggests people believe some ethical issues have objective answers, not just personal or local tastes.
Subjectivism, which says that ethics is just about personal opinion and ethical statements are personal preferences, is an interesting way of escaping lots of debates about ethics. But should you believe this view?
If ethical disagreement was always just about taste, would we ever feel the need to persuade others, or defend our views with reasons?
In workplaces and legal systems, ethical issues like discrimination, privacy, or honesty have real consequences. If ethics were just opinion, how would rules or laws make sense?
Although subjectivism explains why people often disagree about ethics, it struggles to account for the depth and significance of real ethical debates.
What is subjectivism in ethics?
Tap to revealThe view that ethical statements are statements of personal opinion or preference.
How does subjectivism handle ethical disagreement?
Tap to revealIt claims that people are not truly disagreeing, but simply stating their own preferences.
What is a major criticism of subjectivism?
Tap to revealIt cannot account for meaningful ethical disagreement or the reasons people give in real debates.
Do you think ethical disagreements can ever be resolved, or are they always a matter of personal or cultural taste? Why?
Reflect on a time when you changed your mind about a moral issue. What persuaded you—facts, reasons, emotions, or something else? Did it feel like more than just a matter of taste?
Even though ethical opinions can feel subjective, many ethical questions prompt us to seek reasons and justification—suggesting that ethics may be more than just a matter of taste.
Pick a pathway below to explore this question your way.
Create a visual chart comparing subjectivism, cultural relativism, and emotivism. For each, note how it explains what makes something right or wrong, and one problem philosophers have raised with it.
Imagine a conversation where two people disagree about a moral issue—one says ‘that’s just your opinion!’ Act out (write or record) how each person might defend their view, referencing subjectivism or cultural relativism.
Design a creative visual or comic showing the ‘pizza analogy’ for subjectivism. Illustrate how treating ethics like pizza toppings might help—or hurt—our understanding of right and wrong.
When people say ‘that’s just your opinion’ about ethics, are they right? Based on subjectivism, cultural relativism, and emotivism, is there ever an objective answer to what’s right or wrong, or are all moral claims just feelings or cultural habits? Use examples from the lesson to support your view.
If ethics really is just a matter of opinion, what might that mean for how we resolve serious moral disagreements in society?