When I asked whether in his study a distinction is drawn between ethical entrepreneurs propagating false ethical views (e.g. neo-Nazis, etc) and those propagating sound ethical views (e.g. advocates for racial equality, etc), he seemed scandalised by the very thought. (John Tasioulas)
Maybe it's just my attempt to avoid the problem, but my view is that there simply are no "ethical truths" (nor, pace Oliver Traldi, "political beliefs". There are rights and desires, which are, richly subjective. "Objective truth" strikes me as a pleonasm. Truth is epistemic.
Evolution is as true as things get, and the Holocaust is as wrong as people get, but there's nothing distinctly "objective" or "subjective" about either. We can analyze the role of subjectivity and objectivity in our reaction to the facts of the world and acts of history (our facticity and activities writ large), and we should be conscious, always, of, especially, our inter-subjectivity, namely, that our beliefs and desires are formed in our communities.
But to call a truth "objective" is to do nothing more than insist on it. To call a right "subjective" is, likewise, nothing more than to invoke it as, precisley, mine ... or, of course, to grant it as yours.
