display | more...
The subjectivist viewpoint suggests that a person's own perceptions of the world are undeniably correct for that person, thus morality isn't dependent upon social norms. It rejects not only objectivism, the idea that there are overriding moral standards for every culture, but also relativism, in which one's culture determines what one should and shouldn't do. Moral subjectivism reduces morality to pure nihilistic solipsism -- whatever is right for you, is absolutely right. This worldview is great for serial killers and other sundry antisocial types, as it explains away any need to consider others in one's actions.

In a taped statement given by Ted Bundy from prison to one of his surviving victims, Bundy defends moral subjectivism as the reason behind his actions. This is a paraphrase from that tape, done by Harry V. Jaffa for his book Homosexuality and the National Law. Be warned that these are the ideas of Ted Bundy, a multiple rapist and murderer. They are sick and they will probably disturb you.

... then I learned that all moral judgments are "value judgments," that all value
judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either "right" or "wrong."
I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the
American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments.

Believe it or not, I figured out what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't
figure out for himself -- that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero,
multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any
"reason" to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring --
the strength of character -- to throw off its shackles....

... I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become
truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom,
the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable "value judgment"
that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these
"others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a
human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to
you than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more
for the one than the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific
enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or
"good" and others as "immoral" or "bad"?

In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no
comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I
anticipatein raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my
education has led me -- after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and
uninhibited self.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.