Pojman's argument against ethical relativism

     Near the end of his argument, Pojman argues that there is a core morality that human beings should follow in order for our species to succeed, with success being defined as living the good life. In order to live the good life, Pojman claims that human beings should live in social harmony with one another, having the objective morality to not steal or lie to others, so that each of us can achieve our goals that we desire. Pojman basically claims that there must be some sort of moderate objectivity in order for all human beings to have an equal pursuit of the good life, which is the ideal society.

    Ted Bundy, mentioned previously in the article, would object to Pojman's objectivism by stating that his list of universal laws are value judgments that prevent Bundy from subjectively experiencing what he considers the good life to be. Bundy does not achieve pleasure from Pojman's set of laws; he is intensely individual and he derives satisfaction from rape and murder. Bundy would ask Pojman why it is that Pojman's laws overstep what he desires to accomplish as an individual. If he wants to commit crimes that make him happy, Bundy would ask why it is that Pojman's value judgment of the good life should have greater precedence than Bundy's value judgment of the good life.
     Pojman would object to Bundy by claiming that a moderate objective morality has to exist because we are social beings who live with one another. His views are based on social harmony and interpersonal cooperation, and he insists that Bundy's subjective morality is improper, because it treats human beings as if they do not have to live in society. Pojman would say that Bundy is incorrect because every person deserves the opportunity to live the good life, and in raping and murdering other people, Bundy is ensuring that he lives the good life at the expense of others' right to the good life.

     In a second objection, Nietzche, or someone with similar views to Nietzche, could argue that Pojman's universal standards for human behavior are false, because good and bad are relative. Pojman's universal standards only came to be popular in society due to people in power enforcing them over history. For instance, it could be argued that Pojman's standards are very similar to the ten commandments because the Christian religion has had a huge amount of power and influence in the world. Just because Christianity has been followed by millions, however, does not mean that the commandment that says not to murder another individual is good. It was only deemed to be good because the bible is so widely read across history, and rulers who enforced Christianity's moral code had to be obeyed by those not in power.
     Pojman would likely object to Nietzche's point of view by saying that the origin of morality is less important than the implications that morality has on the lives of the current time's people. He would argue that although people in power came up with a large amount of the rules on his list of standards, those rules developed and should be in place because they enable society to function in harmony. Pojman would likely ask why people in power did not create the rules so that they could steal and people without power could not. He would point that back to the fact that human beings possess a sense of moderate objectivism when it comes to morals, because that sense enables human beings to function together optimally.