The Difference Between Subjectivism and Cultural Relativism Subjectivism and cultural relativism are two similar but different views that concern morality and define approaches to examining the justifications for people’s actions. Both doctrines deny the existence of universal truth and a complete set of knowledge and ethics, substantiating it with distinct reasons. The key difference is that relativism relates the human experience to the influence of culture, while subjectivism states that right and wrong is a matter of personal opinion. Subjectivism is grounded on the claim that knowledge is exceptionally judgmental intrinsically, and there is no universal, external or objective truth that is not viewed through personal perceptions. It entails in subjectivism’s statement that a human’s attitude toward morality depends strictly on the mental judgment of events occurring around an individual. Therefore, morality is subjective and personal that makes it impossible to condemn a person for their actions. Cultural relativism is grounded on the statement that knowledge and morality are closely associated with culture or society, and there is no universal truth that is not adjusted by them. It implies that the human’s approach to perceive morality depends on rules established and supported by the community. Thus, human experience in defining what is right and wrong is related to historical context, culture, traditions, and society. Subjectivism and cultural relativism are fundamentally different in truth judging and based on a unique, personal perception of morality or an already existing set of rules and behavioral principles. Objections to the Forms of Subjectivism Subjectivism is divided into four forms: existential choice, noncognitivist views about ethics, group and species subjectivism. All the mentioned parts of the doctrine are partially equitable and respectively conceive objections focused on examining the subjectivism’s statements’ reliability. Existential choice is a form of individual subjectivism that covers the decision-making process regarding life and death matters. From this perspective, significant issues such as abortion or capital punishment are adopted on individuals values basis and often for no objective moral reason. This approach is exceptionally biased as different people, even within the same culture, may choose diverse options. In their turn, noncognitivist views about ethics can conflict with some basic moral perceptions. If moral subjectivism is true, then most violent crimes would be morally right as individuals are only doing what they believe to be right. Moreover, this approach may give rise to disagreement about morality and imply that everyone’s judgments are always correct. Group subjectivism states that moral facts and values are not based on any objective moral realm but derive from shared attitudes that may vary from community to community. This approach implies the impossibility of disagreements adjudicating between cultures and the difficulty of separating a personal opinion from a group’s beliefs. Species subjectivism is grounded on the view that ethical matters depend on human beings’ subjective aspects, s