MORALITY: SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE

MORALITY: SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE

Nature of Morality has been a subject of ongoing debate for years with a divided opinion on basis of it being objective or subjective. as a person with a realist approach to morality I belong to the second camp .it is the purpose of this essay to exemplify my defense for the same.

To start with in this essay the terms morals and ethics are used interchangeably and it would be a start to explain the nature of ethics. ethics are statements of general nature and are supposed to supervene all concepts most importantly those of right and wrong.

An objective moralists view claims that there exists a morality which is external to human beings. Much like the existence of a law of gravity, there is a moral law which exists independently of any conscious being. Hence, morality merely awaits to be detected. In contrast, subjective morality denotes the view that moral views are nothing but human opinions, the origin of which is biological, social, and psychological. as the roots of morality in both cases lie in the conscious. any attempt to imply absolute morals is simply forcing one's ideas on another.

Sometimes perception is wrong, though. Hitler thought he was doing the right thing based on his model of the world! He didn't think he was being evil, and neither did his people at the time...in fact, they're the ones that put him into power. Morality is subjective. Who sets the guidelines? Who makes the rules? WE DO! We're making it all up!

Let's see...Bin Laden is evil, yeh?...who says?...he doesn't!...he says he is cleansing the world of its infidels. Based on his view of the world, he is doing the right thing. You say he is evil because disagree with what he is doing. You assign "bad" with things you disagree with and "Good" to those things with which you agree. Let me see where those ideas come from...religion...beliefs...both of these are your contructions...and they're not usually your contructions but constructions you've borrowed from others rather than your own personal experience!

I think every person in this country (at least the majority) understand that there is 'evil' behind President Bush's policies. He simply wants to promote and support democracies in the hopes that the world can one day achieve peaceful relations. He understands that there are 'evil' people in the world. America is one of the few countries that can respond to 'evil', so we should. He also believes that democracies are inherently 'good'.so it may seem that his policies are evil but end of the day he is enforcing his power for the greater good.no man is inherently good or evil in their purpose for example adolf Hitler though today is criticized as the worst sort of anti humanitarian there ever was all he wanted was a greater germany for his people to live in peace and harmony and he did what was essential to attain it as shock value is most of the times the only way to attain goals.

The first great liberal-crusader President was Theodore Roosevelt. His advice to “walk softly and carry a big stick,” not “set a brush fire and bludgeon your hunting party.”which was what these people who died for their countries did at first but when they reaised that the stick is a weapon of no comapison to the machine gun they had no option but to upgrade.

I firmly hold the view that when two men differ about values, there is not a disagreement as to any kind of truth, but a difference of taste. Disagreement about moral codes seems to reflect people's adherence to and participation in different ways of life. For eg.

“Itis that people approve of monogamy because they participate in a monogamous way of life rather than that they participate in a monogamous way of life because they approve of monogamy."

Objective morality today reflects only the public opinion of what is moral thus resigning itself to social conventions while on the other side subjective morality is authentic as it reflects the core of ones actions and is highly personal.

Just because a large mass of people agree with something does not make it true or ethical stating a very convenient example of slavery of blacks it was of general opinion that they were inferior to the whites but was it so?even though majority opinion lay beyond the favour of the blacks.

Objective morality as the name suggests talks about certain standards but I fail to find reason how that can be without a diety to monitor them. That again would give rise to conflict as to who has the right to decide what is wrong or right ?

The government? the constitution? the people?

Who can be entrusted with a task of such great emphasis that shall dictate the actions of all humans. a theist would instantly put forth the view of existence of god so Let us digress for a moment and construct a simple argument .

The Moral-Knowledge Argument for Atheism

1 If God exists, then he is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.

2 If God exists, it would be in God's interest and within his capacity for all human beings to know his ethics perfectly.

3 All human beings do not know God's ethics perfectly, which is shown by their disagreeing about many moral values.

Therefore: God does not exist.

Furthermore if god did exist and the reason for disagreement of moral values lay in the fact that god did not want all to be aware of his ethics. But then again that would constitute as favouraitism that kills our assumption that god os benevolent.

Morality talks about how things ought to be not how things are, this again brings in the point of opinion.as all hmans by nature are distinct and cannot be defined as good or bad .thus their opinions are are also distinct.THUS,how can morality be objective?

Furthermore saying that morality is objective defies the fundamental principal of our existence. “survival of the fittest” it is the story of our evolution as humans but, think about this for an instant when the times were tough and it was one man for onself where did the principles of morality go who was there for the demented the old the sick or the weak ?nature dictates us to care for self first and then others as to care for others you need to be a strong self first.!!

Thus also cutting short the belief of many people that morality is absolute but actually it varies from situation to situation.

One of the major points of discussions seems to be related to torture .it is considered immoral to inflict pain without cause for eg. It is immoral to kill someone.but it is moral to kill someone who has already raped a woman and is about to kill her and then you.

Then again pointing out the fragile nature of objective morality.even according to the constitution it is stated that harm done to prevent greater harm is plausible and also it is our fundamental right to life and self defense,. all laws have exceptions: I would hope that killing someone who was attacking an innocent person will not earn me the electric chair, even though I would expect (even demand) swift punishment for anyone who killed out of greed or passion.

Finally as to the sources of our moral code many of us would agree that the chief sources of our beliefs are parents our culture and our traditions.

But then again people all across the world have different traditions and customs they pass down generations so how can the moral code be the same. Thus it is subjective again .

As far as universal morals like honestly and good of mankind is concerned,is it right to put forth such things above oneself .it is a justified things to be charitable but idiotic to be charitable and be left with an empty pocket.honesty in itself is also a major debate in itself. I emphasize honesty and integrity in myself and am more likely to let each person succeed or fail according their decisions and their own abilities. But honesty is not always the apt choice ,answering someone frankly and not being politically correct can land you between a stone and a hardplace which is not where one wants to be. It is essential to be good to people but it is not mutually exclusive with honesty as you may land up hurting people around you which is not for the good of mankind as this is what leads to social aggression and hatred which is so prevelant in our society today.Being good and not honest is gin morally wrong as per objective morality thus again proving the point that morality is most definitely subjective.
Thus finally a balance has to be found and maintained for the peaceful existence of humans which does not consist of absolute principles but everchanging and dynamic morality on our behalf .