Moral skepticism, subjectivism, relativism & objectivism
Moral skepticism: The view that there are no valid moral principles at all, or that we cannot know whether there are any.

Moral subjectivism: Morality is not dependent on society but only on the individual.

Ethical Relativism: The theory that there are no universally valid moral principles binding on all people at all times, but rather all are valid relative to culture (or individual choice = subjectivism). Moral Objectivism
  1. Holds that moral principles are valid rules of action that should generally be adhered to, but may be overridden by other moral principles in cases of conflict.
  2. Not the same as moral absolutism, the idea that there exists just one moral principle and it must never be violated.
  3. Proposes that there exist at least one, or a set, of minimal moral principles that are binding on all rational beings. It it can show this, it can refute ethical relativism. Candidate principles include:
  4. In cases where these principles are violated it makes more sense to look for an explanation (ignorance, perversion, irrationality) than to suppose that the exception should make us question the principle.
  5. These principles are not arbitrary as the relativist holds, because we can give reasons why they are necessary to social cohesion and human flourishing, in the face of diverse human goods.
  6. These may (but need not be) based on a common human nature - a set of needs and interests.
  7. Those principles that meet essential needs and promote the most significant interests of humans in optimal ways can be said to be objectively valid moral principles.