Subjectivism Vs Objectivism

Essentially, the Objectivist would reason that you should take the medicine anyways - even if the choice does not align with your desires - because as a human being, you have a duty to live for the sake (or object-given reason) of living out your life. In a less widely accepted and more cruelly (and seemingly suicidal) manner, Subjectivists claim that you have no reason to take the medicine or to keep on living. Accordingly, this counterexample defends the belief that there are in fact object-given reasons and objective moral truths. Still, Williams may attack this counterexample by - as opposed to addressing the example itself - defending the aforementioned unconventional Subjectivist view. If you do not see any value in it, believe in it,
Therefore, although it is ‘wrong’, it is ‘right’ at the same time. This perplexing contradiction may lead Williams to claim that object-given reasons and Objectivism cannot force us to act if a contradiction between two or more moral truths is reached. If moral truths are objective, then they must be equally forceful. If two contradicting moral truths are reached, then no choice, action, or belief can be made. This would create a grave dilemma for Objectivists as a world where people would not be able to make choices would end intellectual progress and dehumanize people as a whole. Moreover, if a distinctive decision could not be made between two choices, the capability to make moral choices (a defining ‘human’ feature) would cease to
However, originating from Parfit’s Early Death example and eventually leading to the rebuttal of Williams’ potential rebuttals, the conclusive factor ended up being a mere misunderstanding. Nonetheless, out of this misunderstanding, the definition of ‘reason’ turned out to be the key to settling this debate. Ultimately, however, as long as the Objectivist side’s definition of this ‘reason’ stands, their arguments will hold