I think of subjectivism and relativism as normative ethical theories, just like utilitarianism. (See here for more: andrewsepielli.substack…). Utilitarianism says that right and wrong depend on the aggregate well-being that there’ll be if I do something; subjectivism and relativism say that right and wrong depend on what this person or these people think of my doing something. Resistance to this takes several forms (along with my quick replies):

“Some other philosophy professor says that subjectivism and relativism are meta-ethical” (Okay. I think that other professor is being less perspicacious on this topic. I’m sure they have other admirable qualities.)

“Subjectivism and relativism don’t tell you what matters, they tell you why other things matter — e.g. that harm matters because this or that person thinks so.” (First, this is a distinction without an important difference for our purposes; second, you could zhuzh up utilitarianism so that it works just like you’re saying subjectivism and relativism work.)

“Subjectivism and relativism are about what ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ mean.” (First, careful with that. Second, again, you could zhuzh up utilitarianism so it’s saying similar semantic stuff.)

“Subjectivism and relativism are about the nature of morality/which natural properties moral properties are identical to or reducible to.” (Again, you could zhuzh utilitarianism — metaphysicify it, more precisely.)

Any more rejoinders to my way of thinking about things, I’d he happy to hear them!