Why did Bernard Williams question whether ethics can have universal objectivity?

Bernard Williams questioned the possibility of universal objectivity in ethics because he believed that the ambition to transcend one's own perspective in the practical domain is fundamentally misguided and absurd.1

Unlike scientific inquiry, which aims for an "absolute conception" of reality independent of human perception, Williams argued that moral judgments are inherently tied to how individuals live and what they should do. He contended that practical reasons must be "internal," meaning they must derive from a person's existing motives rather than being imposed by external, universal standards.1

Williams maintained that ethical truth is often local and historically contingent, rooted in the actual practices and motives of specific cultures. He argued that attempting to eliminate the "perspectival peculiarities" of an individual point of view—a goal central to theories like utilitarianism or the Kantian tradition—ignores the contingency, complexity, and individuality of human life. For Williams, such an ambition risks being self-deceived, as it essentially tries to remove the very personal traits that give human life its meaning.1