In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy Simon Blackburn defines ethical objectivism as if it was the contrary of relativism:
«Ethical objectivism. The view that the claims of ethics are objectively true; they are not relative to a a subject or a culture, nor purely subjective in their nature, in opposition to error theories, scepticism and relativism. The central problem is finding the source of the required objectivity.»(Simon Blackburn, Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Page 121 ).
There is a mistake, a missing of dialectics in Simon Blackburn: the contrary of objectivism is not relativism. It is subjectivism, the singular and intimate view of each person. Relativism means the theory which sustains that the truth varies according to the societies, according to each social class and political, philosophical, cultural or religious group within the same society, the continents and the ages, the space and the time, but possesses objectivity: for example, space is relative in the theory of Einstein, is round near great masses and straight far away them, but in all cases is objective, has objectivity and relativity. Objectivity does not mean immutability as Blackburn supposes. The changes express relativity of things and stadiums but conserve objectivity. For example: the water can assume a solid, liquid or gas shape and this is relativism (the changes of the same essence) and simultaneously is objectivism (a reality outside our minds perceived by all with unanimity). So relativism is not opposite to objectivism, because they coexist in the same phenomena without mutual exclusion.
Blackburn confuses objectivism with absolutism, based on immutability. Objectivity is a property of relativism and of absolutism / no relativism, I mean : objectivism is genus and relativism and no relativism are species partially contained in it.
© (Direitos de autor para Francisco Limpo de Faria Queiroz)
Livraria online de Filosofia e Astrologia Histórica