Pojman's Dependency thesis
... Of the two forms of this thesis, we’re more concerned with the strong version. “If there are different moral principles from culture to culture and if all morality is rooted in culture, then it follows that there are not universal moral principles valid for all cultures and people at all times.” The “Dependency” thesis relies on the fact that people within the same society will have similar life experiences. These experiences color their perception of the world around them, in isence “…we live in radically different world,” from society other than our own. This however can also be a weakness of the “Dependency” thesis. If we truly live in different worlds than how can we base our morality on the society we live in. For even within the same society people can live very different lives, meaning they’ve experienced different aspects of life. Subjectivism is a theory that understood this and therefore states the morality is dependent on the individual, not the culture to which they belong. This counterdicks Pojman’s “dependency” thesis on its very concept, which it is derived from. Subjectivism claims that morality arose from personal feelings, not from society. This does not entirely disprove Pojman’s “dependency” thesis just merely puts it into question. When questioning as to weather the “Dependency” thesis could be true, one must consider Conventionalism. Conventionalism is the belief that people do share a basic moral language and understanding. If this is true, than there are universal morals governing the entire world. This concept is accepted in the weak form of the “Dependency” thesis but completely goes against the strong form, the one we are concerned with. Pojman tries to object to this theory by stating that Conventionalism entails toleran...