Hello, everyone. Here I present the highly ALPHA version of a draft I’m working on. This does not yet deal with Idealism, but does cover much of what I want to say about subjective vs. objective ethics. Please constructively critique. Thank you in advance for your meaningful contributions.
Author’s Note: This essay is not intended as an attack or attempted disproof of the importance of Reason, Faith, or any other belief. It is merely a philosophical attempt to prove that ethics is a subjective matter.
[b]Idealism
Is Ethics Subjective Or Objective?[/b]
In the philosophy of ethics, there are two primary categories under which all other philosophies fall: objective, or universal, ethics and subjective ethics. Before examining the details of the question of ethics, we must first answer the question of whether or not ethics are universal or subjective. Without an answer to this question, we will not be able to proceed further into the issue with any validity or certainty.
From my observations, I have seen two primary stances in support of objective ethics. The first makes its claim to objectivism by appealing to the idea of reality and established patterns that they identify as universal absolutes. “Humans can think rationally, and thinking rationally tends to lead to a life which minimizes self-destruction . Therefore, humans ought to think rationally.” is a good example of such a line of thought. The second makes its claim to objectivism by appealing to the idea of a higher authority which has laid out or constructed an objective ethics into the universe. “Deity X, an omnipotent, omniscient being created the universe and built Ethical Code Y into it. Therefore, humans ought to behave according to Ethical Code Y.” is a good example of this line of thought.
Objectivism
Beginning with those who subscribe to the former stance, the biggest issue lies in the naturalistic fallacy, which is the fallacy that every “is” implies an “ought.” This fallacy is best defeated by Hume’s Guillotine, but I will provide another few examples here.
Consider this: a horse and a donkey can reproduce, and reproduction is pleasurable, so they should reproduce. Firstly, what is the source and authority of the claim that pleasure is good? Where is the objective proof for such a claim? Secondly, if the achievement of pleasure is considered the goal, then horses and donkey’s should reproduce, but note that this “ought” is not motivated by the “is” that they can reproduce, but is motivated by the goal of achieving pleasure, which is an “ought.” Finally, note that, if a different goal is considered, such as the goal of producing fertile offspring, reproduction would be considered bad. The offspring of a horse and a donkey is sterile, and so reproduction does not achieve their goal. The implication of this is that the same action can be considered either good or bad depending on the perspective that motivates it. This is the definition of subjective.
Consider also the fact that, evolutionarily, humans have been benefited by eating as much as possible when food is available. In our past, this was advantageous for our survival. Now, though, food is plentiful. There still exists the “is” that a human’s natural tendency is to eat as much as possible. But, if healthy living is our goal, that does not translate into the “ought” that we should continue to eat as much as possible. In short, an “is” will never imply an “ought;” only an “ought” can imply an “ought.”
Now that the naturalistic fallacy has been explained, let me return to those who declare something like, “Humans can think rationally, and thinking rationally tends to lead to a life which minimizes self-destruction . Therefore, humans ought to think rationally.” The “is” in this situation is clear: humans can think rationally, and thinking rationally tends to lead to a life which minimizes self-destruction. The “ought” in this situation is: humans ought to think rationally. This argument hinges on the following implication: the minimization of self-destruction is good. I ask again: what is the source and authority for this claim? Can this be objectively proven? I think not. How does one go about proving that the minimization of self-destruction is good, right, or correct? Does the fact that it extends our lifespan prove it? Only if you take an extended lifespan to be good, right, or correct. No matter how many instances of “is” arise, none of them will ever imply an “ought.”
Mysticism
The second group, those who claim that a higher authority or being has inlaid the universe with certain objective morals and ethics, are guilty of also guilty of a lack of proof for their claims.
To begin, we’ll assume that Being X is an omnipotent, omniscient being who exists. This is a large assumption to start off with, but without it we can progress no further. Let us acknowledge also that, when proving the objectiveness of a claim, it must have a source and an authority that can be proven to be valid in all free-thinking, reasonable perspectives. Obviously, regardless of any actual objectiveness, one cannot debate with someone unwilling or unable to be reasonable and consider evidence.
Now, then, let’s say that Ethical Code Y is said to be derived from Being X’s unlimited knowledge. The idea is that Being X, in his omniscience, would have knowledge of standards that exist externally from Him. If these standards are truly known due to his omniscience, then they must exist externally from Being X. If they do not exist externally, then the case is one which I will soon mention. Assuming they do exist externally, then the origin and nature of these standards is still not explained by asserting that Being X, in his infinite knowledge, commands us to act according to them. In this scenario, all we have is the authority that Being X has given us. We have no source from which to determine if these standards are truly objective.
It should be noted that, if such standards were to exist, and such a Being X were also to exist, then Being X would be able to explain the source of such standards to us in terms we could understand. As we can understand reality, we can also understand, given enough information, any absolutes that exist within reality. If the source of these standards cannot be explained thus, then the source of these standards is not fully in reality, and therefore they are not truly objective. However, if Being X can sufficiently explain the source of such standards, then objective morality and ethics would, in fact, exist. In short, the day that God reveals Himself to me and explains to me, in terms I can understand, why there is an objective code of ethics is the day that I will believe there is an objective code of ethics. This situation is redundant at best, though. Said in other words, it is simplified to: “Assuming the existence of an objective code of ethics and a being capable of understanding it, there would be an objective code of ethics.”
Perhaps Ethical Code Y is not derived from Being X’s omniscience, but from His omnipotence. In His omnipotence, He has simply built a code of ethics into the universe. That is His authority. “I have created it thus, and so it is.” But what is the source? The source is Being X Himself, and any concept for which its source and authority lies in its creator is subjective by definition. Such a code of ethics would be subjective to the perspective of Being X. Never mind that it would be in our benefit to act according to it – it is still subjective.
So, then, having rationally and logically eliminated all possibilities of a truly objective code of ethics, excepting one instance which is self-verifying and redundant, the only option remaining is that ethics is a subjective issue.