My aim in this paper is the show to the audience that morality is subjective. Morality doesn't abide by the universal principle, therefore it can't be objective. I shall do three things; first I shall examine the claim of Nagel, and the claim of Benedict. Second I shall compare both claims. Third, I shall give an example, and explain why morality is subjective.
             If morality were objective, as Nagel claims, then all would agree on one morality. If morality is culturally relative, as Benedict claims, then individuals are introduced to values and behavior types that are adopted in their society. Nagel gives three objectives, besides religion, to why morality is objective. First, people who don't believe in God, still make moral judgments of wrong and right. Second, God forbids wrong not because he is God, But because it is wrong. Third, all have fear of punishment and hope of reward. If one doesn't have a morality, then one will not do an injustice to his neighbor because he would not want and injustice done to him. Benedict gave several factual examples of non-western civilizations, where their values and behavior in western civilization is considered abnormal. Just as western civilization behavior type and values, would be considered abnormal in non-western civilizations. In order for morality to be objective, the belief of one morality would have to be universal. Benedict's claim clearly proves that morality varies from culture to culture. Nagel's claim has no factual evidence, his statements are his assumptions. Therefore morality isn't universal and can't be objective.
             If morality were objective then homosexuality would be normal or abnormal in all societies. It's considered abnormal in almost all western societies. Benedict made a statement about the Plato Republic, which was a time in Greece when homosexuality was a sexuality deeply imb
             ...