by Daniel Brouse
September 15, 2025
Subjectivism is the philosophical stance that reality, knowledge, or morality is dependent on the individual subject’s perception, consciousness, or experience, rather than on an objective, independent external reality. In essence, “truth” is seen as subjective and varies from person to person or culture to culture. There are different forms, such as metaphysical subjectivism, which holds that reality depends on consciousness, and ethical subjectivism, which claims that moral truth is determined by personal attitudes or societal feelings, not universal facts.
At first glance, subjectivism can sound appealing — after all, it seems tolerant to say “everyone has their own truth.” But the problem becomes clear when we confuse two very different categories: preferences and moral claims.
- Preferences are opinions. Liking or disliking broccoli, rooting for the Eagles or the Cowboys, or preferring jazz to rap — these are matters of taste. They’re subjective, and no one can be “right” or “wrong” about them. If broccoli tastes bad to you, that’s an opinion, nothing more.
- Moral claims, on the other hand, are not opinions. They are universal. Saying “prostitution is bad” or “racism is wrong” isn’t just a statement of taste — it’s a moral judgment about human beings, their dignity, and society. Morality, unlike food or music preferences, carries consequences for how we treat each other and how we structure laws and institutions.
This is where subjectivism collapses. If morality is just a matter of opinion, then slavery, genocide, or racism can all be excused as “just someone’s perspective.” That’s why subjectivism is often used as a freshman-level philosophy example to show its failings.
Enter Charlie Kirk
Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, often hides behind this exact confusion. He makes inflammatory statements — such as claiming Black women “don’t have the brain processing power” — and when challenged, his defenders insist he’s merely “sharing an opinion.” But this is not an opinion about broccoli or football. It’s a racist moral claim, one that demeans millions of people and perpetuates discrimination.
Kirk has also attacked feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, and higher education using the same rhetorical sleight of hand — reducing serious moral and social issues to mere “opinions.” By doing so, he disarms criticism: after all, how can you argue with an opinion? But this is precisely the trap of subjectivism. It pretends that harmful ideologies are as harmless as a preference in music, when in fact they inflict real damage.
Why It Matters
Words are not always harmless. The old saying “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” is comforting, but false. Words shape values, justify policies, and can incite violence. Racist, sexist, or bigoted statements are not trivial expressions of taste — they are moral claims with social consequences.
That’s the fundamental distinction many miss:
- Taste is subjective.
- Morality is universal.
When people like Charlie Kirk blur that line, they smuggle destructive moral claims into public discourse under the cover of “opinion.” And when his defenders repeat that excuse, they’re not being tolerant — they’re enabling harm.
If morality were truly just opinion, then nothing would be right or wrong, and the most horrific injustices in history could be justified. That’s the dead end of subjectivism.