Question of the Month
“Is Morality Objective?”
From Philosophy Now magazine
Martin Butler
In other words, in discussing morality, where does science and mathematics and philosophy and theology and all the other disciplines end…so that we can then discern and discuss where the others begin?
Instead, they seem to be all entangled in a “human condition” embedded in a universe where, by far, the overwhelming preponderance of interactions have absolutely nothing to do with morality at all.
And, in turn, the overwhelming preponderance of human interactions that can be “observed” also consist of relationships that are clearly able to be demonstrated as true for all of us.
And yet, as well, the overwhelming preponderance of turmoil, of upheaval, of pain and suffering, deeply embedded in the history of the human race, revolves precisely around those things that we do not seem able to pin down: value judgments.
Doing the right thing.
And, in my view, most folks seem far more intent on convincing themselves that whatever the right thing might possibly be, it does in fact exist.
And that is so because they have, In fact, already discovered what that is. Then it is merely a matter of dealing with those who, while sharing their conviction that morality is objective, disagree [more or less insistently] regarding what that entails out in the world of actual human interactions.
The part that revolves around rewards and punishments.
This in my view becomes hopelessly entangled in human psychology. And, given a particular individual’s psychological parameters, “I” is going to evolve over time given an enormously complex intertwining of a particular set of genes and a particular confluence of memes.
Then it comes down to those who are actually convinced that they and they alone are able to untangle all of these countless variables. In order to come up with a sum of all parts such that, thinking it all through, they discovered or invented a moral narrative and political agenda such that they can know when any particular abortion is or is not morally acceptable. Some even going so far as to convince themselves that morality can be understood here universally. Abortion itself as a bundle of behaviors can be pinned down objectively. Deontologically as it were. Or [of course] behaviors construed to be sins.
I can agree with this. Well, up to a point. I would never argue that objective morality is out of reach. And, surely, given a belief in an omniscient and omnipotent God, how could it not exist.
It may even be possible, in a No God world, to pin down “the right thing to do” in any conceivable context. All I can do is go in search of the argument and the demonstration that convinces me this is in fact true.
But even here it would only be deemed true by me. How would it all be put together by someone such that all rational men and women are obligated to believe this behavior is right and that behavior is wrong.
As for torturing a baby, yes, that is likely to be considerably closer to objective morality than, say, littering.
But in a No God world someone can always rationalize doing even that…and for whatever personal reason that propels them. Perhaps they loathe someone so much that they punish them by torturing the baby in front of them. Perhaps they are sociopaths who just want to experience what it might be like.
After all, look at all of the ghastly behaviors [up to and including genocide] that have rationalized by human beings down through the ages. Some to the point where the behaviors are actually seen to be righteous!
For me God is absolutely vital here.
Though even then assuming I have the autonomy necessary to believe that of my own free will.