Hakuna Matata section 19 group 3 Blackburn

We began the discussion with what the relevance was to subjectivism. Someone suggested subjectivism was believing your own thing and not arguing. Moral relativism is agreeing to disagree. Though we established that its completely different for different cultures. Blackburn said that he thought you needed the argument to decide which way to live your life. We also thought Blackburn was saying with simple disagreements like mint toothpaste then it can be used. Though on bigger subjects like moral relativism doesn't  work because it doesn't help anything. We continued to try and define the difference in relativism and subjectivism. We found that subjectivism was a matter of taste. Moral relativism is to each his own. We then talked about Blackburn's quasi-realistic view. We defined that Blackburn believed there should be a disagreement in order to decide the best way to live their life. We then bagan to discuss weather we personally believed in moral relativism. We tried to decide if there is a line where moral relativism is okay and when it is to far for more serious ideas such as murder. Can there be a line when so many people think differently, the best you could do is argue your own points. We went back to culture and religion and how some cultures just cant expect how other cultures live. Not everyone will agree with one set idea. There will always be someone who disagrees. Though moral relativism doesn't solve anything. Subjectivism relates to just because you have different views doesn't mean there going to change their ideas. An example that Blackburn gave of the impractical ideas of moral relativism was that some believe that torturing babies is okay. Therefore Blackburn believed on bigger issues moral relativism and subjectivism does not solve anything, and conflict is needed and being relativistic is impractical. Towards the end we reviewed the ideas of the other readings.