What is subjectivism ? Is it a threat to morality ?

Extraits de l'exposé

[...] Furthermore, in each culture the moral judgements made by members of that culture are correct (they are internally justified or legitimated). J. L. Mackie gave a second argument[2]: the ?argument of queerness?, which makes the objectivist thesis implausible. If moral values were to exist as described by moral objectivism, then they would be qualities or entities peculiar to those found in the World. The only things for which there are independent and objective procedures or mechanisms to determine the presence of are natural properties. [...]

[...] Indeed, Atheism was,-as well as subjectivism- regarding as a threat to morality, whereas today atheist can be considered as moral people. The attitude that we ought to believe things simply because they have better social consequences ?despite the fact there are true or not- will be strongly opposed by those moralists who believe that knowing the truth is a value in and of itself. Bibliography Victor Grassian, Moral Reasoning: Ethical Theory and Some Contemporary Moral Problems (London, Prentice- Hall, 1981) J. [...]

[...] Indeed rationality requires that a judgement be validated before being accepted. However subjectivism implies that it must be accepted before it is valid if it can ever be valid at all, so subjectivism implies moral judgements are impossible. Relativism makes moral judgement not merely non-rational but positively irrational; insofar as it implies that moral judgement must always proceed according to a manner, which is directly contrary to what reason demands without any basis. Every action and every moral judgement is, if subjectivism is true, arbitrary- i.e. [...]

[...] Objectivism is the opposite of Subjectivism. It perceives Moral value as agent-neutral. According to that theory moral value is not dependent upon what the evaluating subjects actually care about, desire or believe. The claims of moral objectivism seem weird, because they don't seem to have any solid support, and conflict with the claims of 'common sense'. Let's study two arguments against Objectivism, and which will justify Subjectivism. First comes the argument from relativity and refers to the fact that there is no universal moral code binding upon or adhered to by people across time or culture. [...]

[...] If it turns out that morality is subjective, there would be something incorrect about that. We can identify three formulations of subjectivism. The first one ?linguistic- means that when we speak or think about morality, what we mean is to express our own attitudes and nothing more. Thus, "Killing is bad" means disapprove of killing someone." So that it would be a matter of taste, that's why we cannot apply formula to behaviours and to morality. The second ?epistemological- implies that moral judgments can't be proven to be true, unlike scientific ones. [...]

[...] Then I will try to assess in which sense subjectivism constitute or not a danger to morality. Let's start with a presentation of the term subjectivism, which will be at the centre of the essay. I will try to define it and counter it to its opposite ?Objectivism? in order to understand why Subjectivism will be of greater value than Objectivism. "Subjectivity" is a term used to indicate that the truth of some class of statements depends on the mental condition or reactions of the person making the statement. [...]