Relativism and Subjectivism

Two traditional Moral positions that are often confused can be called 'Relativism' and 'Subjectivism'. 'Relativism' holds that the best Conduct for one person might not be that for another. 'Subjectivism' asserts that one is always the best judge of what is one's best Conduct. Now, while some cases might be both Relativistic and Subjectivistic, others are not. The most historically prominent example of their divergence is Aristotle's principle 'Act in Moderation', which is Relativistic, but not Subjectivistic, for, e. g. what might be Courageous for one person might be Reckless for someone less physically robust. In other words, Relativism does not preclude an objective criterion being the ground of evaluation, nor an observer being qualified to offer someone competent advice on what to do. The source of the confusion lies in the notion that any 'Moral' Conduct must be principled, i. e. must be based on some formula that is applicable in all cases. Hence, Morality must be Universalistic, which some Moralists interpret as 'impersonal'. So, since neither Relativism nor Subjectivism abstract from the personal, those Moralists conflate them as indifferently 'Immoral'. But, the measure of the soundness of a Principle is its comprehensiveness--how many distinct cases it can apply to--which is a function of both scope and precision of formulation. In other words, more precise formulation is the mark of the superiority of a Principle. Hence, the inability to distinguish Relativism, which Aristotle demonstrates to be Universalistic, from Subjectivism, is an expression of an inferior Moral Principle.