But relativism and subjectivism have perhaps even more serious implications. According to the relativist, if a man's society believes that he has a certain duty, then he has that duty, regardless of what it might be, and, according to the subjectivist, if a man believes that he has a certain duty, then he does, regardless of what it might be. Thus, to use a common but compelling example, it is the duty of an individual member of a Nazi group to assist in torturing and killing millions of Jews if his society believes it is, and for a subjectivist it is his duty to do so if he believes it is. Relativists and subjectivists might reply that this objection begs the question at issue, since it assumes that torturing and killing Jews is objectively wrong. To this there are two answers. One is that it is objectively wrong, and any ethical or meta-ethical theory that denies that it is in order to save the theory is itself guilty of begging the question. The other is that one test of the soundness of a theory is whether it logically requires the tolerance of or permits the condemnation of such action. If it requires tolerance of it, it is unsound. If it permits condemnation, it is sound at least to that extent.
(Ramon M. Lemos, "Objectivism, Relativism, and Subjectivism in Ethics," International Philosophical Quarterly 5 [fall 1965]: 56-65, at 61)
Note from KBJ: Lemos is arguing as follows:
1. If relativism is true, then it is the duty of an individual member of a Nazi group to assist in torturing and killing millions of Jews if his society believes it is.
2. It is not the duty of an individual member of a Nazi group to assist in torturing and killing millions of Jews [even] if his society believes it is.
Therefore,
3. Relativism is not true.
Since the argument is valid (i.e., truth-preserving), everyone must either (a) reject the first premise, (b) reject the second premise, or (c) accept the conclusion. Lemos accepts the conclusion. But why must everyone adopt this strategy? A relativist can grasp the bull by the horn and reject the first premise, or even bite the bullet and reject the second premise. Utilitarians such as J. J. C. Smart and Peter Singer are allowed to bite bullets. Why are relativists not allowed to bite bullets?
