Moral Objectivism versus Moral Subjectivism

[Charlemagne_II]

In 1956 Professors Richard Popkin and Avrum Stroll wrote an introduction to philosophy text. In the chapter on Objective and Subjective Ethics they lay out the respective case for each school of thought.

Subjective ethics involves the personal approach to ethics, whereby we assign a good or bad value to certain acts based on our personal preference. In the subjective view, all judgments originate in the individual ego, and have no objective or intrinsic source in the world at large. For example, if there were no humans on the planet, there would be no good or bad, because there would be no one to assert a personal preference. This presumes there is no mind other than the human mind. One notices that the subjectivist position leans toward, or even affirms, atheism.

Objective ethical judgments are presumed to be made based on the acts themselves, whether they are good or bad in themselves, rather than good or bad because we like them or dislike them. The moral objectivist affirms an objective standard by which acts can be judged. These standards are found in the natural law, in conscience, in reason and common sense, and in the authority of revelation. The ethical objectivist says that even if there is no human being to assert a good or bad value, good would still be intrinsic in the world because God, when He created the world, saw that it was good. The bad that is in the world only arrives when man tries to evade the designs of God.

I think it fair to say that the Catholic Church and certain other institutions stand for objective ethical values.

It is equally fair to say that those who stand against the Church do so (at least in part) because they are ethical subjectivists.

Where do you stand? And why?

 

[4Horsemen]

In 1956 Professors Richard Popkin and Avrum Stroll wrote an introduction to philosophy text. In the chapter on Objective and Subjective Ethics they lay out the respective case for each school of thought.

Subjective ethics involves the personal approach to ethics, whereby we assign a good or bad value to certain acts based on our personal preference. In the subjective view, all judgments originate in the individual ego, and have no objective or intrinsic source in the world at large. For example, if there were no humans on the planet, there would be no good or bad, because there would be no one to assert a personal preference. This presumes there is no mind other than the human mind. One notices that the subjectivist position leans toward, or even affirms, atheism.

Objective ethical judgments are presumed to be made based on the acts themselves, whether they are good or bad in themselves, rather than good or bad because we like them or dislike them. The moral objectivist affirms an objective standard by which acts can be judged. These standards are found in the natural law, in conscience, in reason and common sense, and in the authority of revelation. The ethical objectivist says that even if there is no human being to assert a good or bad value, good would still be intrinsic in the world because God, when He created the world, saw that it was good. The bad that is in the world only arrives when man tries to evade the designs of God.

I think it fair to say that the Catholic Church and certain other institutions stand for objective ethical values.

It is equally fair to say that those who stand against the Church do so (at least in part) because they are ethical subjectivists.

Where do you stand? And why?

I fall into the second school of thought because, as you stated so well, that when God created the world He said it was good. Even without Divine Revelation, we can conclude there is a Natural Law because of our innate and God-given sense of right and wrong–that conscience that informs us even though we may try to silence that “little voice.” C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, which I read some time ago, begins his book with the development of our understanding of the Moral Law. He argues that we know when an act is inherently wrong or bad, not just ill-conceived.

We can also conclude that there is objective Truth by experience. If we are centered on God; if God is our center, our ground of being, our summit, we can more easily know right from wrong. If we are out of sync with God, then we don’t know where we stand, in a moral sense, even though we attempt to construct our own personal value system. Our little system is merely based upon our own egos and are subject to change daily, no, hourly or by the minute. We become our own Masters and think that God is dead or unreal. Instead, we become slaves, slaves of our passions. We think we are using our reason when, instead, we are rationalizing.

Also, we can find God in His creation-- from biology to cosmology. We see the evidence of spiritual footprints everywhere we go. Philosophy/metaphysics and, of course, theology bring us to a knowledge of a personal God with mighty attributes, a Supreme Being, who has standards and expectations and a purpose for each of us.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I brought this up awhile ago and was quite disappointed by the believers’ arguments for objective morality, an issue absolutely central to our faith. I hope the arguments are better conceived this time.

 

[4Horsemen]

I brought this up awhile ago and was quite disappointed by the believers’ arguments for objective morality, an issue absolutely central to our faith. I hope the arguments are better conceived this time.

Would you please explain? I didn’t see your earlier discussion.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Would you please explain? I didn’t see your earlier discussion.

I just posted some very simple atheist objections to Lewis’s arguments for objective morality made in Mere Christianity, and nobody seemed to be able to refute the objections. I was a bit disappointed.

 

[4Horsemen]

I just posted some very simple atheist objections to Lewis’s arguments for objective morality made in Mere Christianity, and nobody seemed to be able to refute the objections. I was a bit disappointed.

Thank you.

I see that there is another similar thread called “Objective vs. Subjective” and from what I read, there seems to be confusion about the terms. I guess there is sufficient interest since I found another thread on the Natural Law written in our hearts, or something to the effect.

Catholics should know the difference and the importance of the Natural Law, which is not taught in philosophy classes anymore, at least at secular colleges.

 

[AntiTheist]

There are a few elementary logical errors in the OP.

Subjective ethics involves the personal approach to ethics …] One notices that the subjectivist position leans toward, or even affirms, atheism.

It doesn’t. It’s a position consistent with atheism, but it in no way “affirms” atheism.

There are some religious – or “spiritual” – people (usually of the New Age variety) who have this hippy-dippy “god is a power within mankind” worldview. That’s an example of a person with a subjectivist position who is also religious (or at least a supernaturalist).

Further, there are atheists who would count themselves amongst the “objectivist” camp, so I’m afraid you’re just simply wrong here.

The ethical objectivist says that even if there is no human being to assert a good or bad value, good would still be intrinsic in the world because God, when He created the world, saw that it was good.

Well, the Christian ethical objectivist might say that, but ethical objectivists who are non-theists or who are theists of different varieties might…well, object.

It is equally fair to say that those who stand against the Church do so (at least in part) because they are ethical subjectivists.

In the first place, there are many who “stand against the Church” precisely because they are ethical objectivists. For example, there are Muslims who oppose Christians on the grounds that their god orders them to do so. They might consider it “objectively good” to oppose Christianity.

In the second place, you can’t attribute a causal relationship between one’s ethical stance and one’s opposition to an institution. For your logic to be consistent, ethical subjectivists would have to oppose every single institution that supports ethical objectivism, which is clearly not the case.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

Further, there are atheists who would count themselves amongst the “objectivist” camp, so I’m afraid you’re just simply wrong here.

I didn’t say “has to be an atheist.” I said “leans toward.” Doesn’t that imply exceptions? Ayn Rand, for example, would be an exception. But if you will notice, most of the atheists in this forum are for gay marriage, which is an egoistic preference, rather than an objectively moral act.

Well, the Christian ethical objectivist might say that, but ethical objectivists who are non-theists or who are theists of different varieties might…well, object.

Of course they would. Why wouldn’t they? But the existence of God is not the subject of this thread.

In the first place, there are many who “stand against the Church” precisely because they are ethical objectivists. For example, there are Muslims who oppose Christians on the grounds that their god orders them to do so. They might consider it “objectively good” to oppose Christianity.

Well, now you have to examine your own logic. Not all Muslims oppose and hate and persecute Christians. The ones who do have to justify their opposition, but it seems to me they can only do so on irrational, subjective grounds. The extremist have been taught hatred and violence, for example. Bin Laden is not my idea of an objective thinker, though doubtless in his own mind he thinks he is. Truth is One. Not all who claim to have the objective truth really have it.

*In the second place, you can’t attribute a causal relationship between one’s ethical stance and one’s opposition to an institution. **For your logic to be consistent, ethical subjectivists would have to oppose every single institution that supports ethical objectivism, which is clearly not the case. ** *

Please give me an example of an ethical subjectivist who supports an institution that claims to be ethically objective. I don’t think atheist subjectivists support Islam any more than they support Christianity. Christopher Hitchens, who is certainly an ethical subjectivist, says that all religion spoils everything.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you.

I see that there is another similar thread called “Objective vs. Subjective” and from what I read, there seems to be confusion about the terms. I guess there is sufficient interest since I found another thread on the Natural Law written in our hearts, or something to the effect.

Catholics should know the difference and the importance of the Natural Law, which is not taught in philosophy classes anymore, at least at secular colleges.

There are a couple of problems with these threads. One is the confusion between objective reasoning and subjective reasoning which at times, to cause more confusion, can be used together.

The main problem, in my humble opinion, is that people look at acts of morality as being morals themselves. This is not logical. Morality are acts or a system of acts which are based on an objective truth. Even subjective morality can be based on the same objective truth. Even natural law is based on an objective truth.

When the objective or universal truth is not recognized it is difficult, near impossible, to maintain any kind of objective moral system.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

When the objective or universal truth is not recognized it is difficult, near impossible, to maintain any kind of objective moral system.

This is one more of the main objections to a subjective ethical system. If individuals are going to decide what is moral and what is not based on their personal preference, there will be moral anarchy, because every man’s preference is just that … his preference. Thus Hitler’s preference to kill the Jews was justified by a subjectively rationalized decision to use force to have his will enacted in the law. The German judges brought to trial at Nuremberg after the war were found guilty, not because they applied Nazi law, but because they had joined Hitler in sending innocents to the gas chambers … that being a violation of objective law by universal moral standards.

The movie “Judgment at Nuremberg” is an excellent application of the principle that the law must be based on objective values of right and wrong. The American judge played by Spencer Tracy near the end of the movie, when he was passing sentence on the German judges, perfectly enunciated the principle of objective ethics embedded in the law, which is founded upon natural law principles, reason, and common sense.

 

[Rocinante]

In 1956 Professors Richard Popkin and Avrum Stroll wrote an introduction to philosophy text. In the chapter on Objective and Subjective Ethics they lay out the respective case for each school of thought.

Subjective ethics involves the personal approach to ethics, whereby we assign a good or bad value to certain acts based on our personal preference. In the subjective view, all judgments originate in the individual ego, and have no objective or intrinsic source in the world at large. For example, if there were no humans on the planet, there would be no good or bad, because there would be no one to assert a personal preference. This presumes there is no mind other than the human mind. One notices that the subjectivist position leans toward, or even affirms, atheism.

Objective ethical judgments are presumed to be made based on the acts themselves, whether they are good or bad in themselves, rather than good or bad because we like them or dislike them. The moral objectivist affirms an objective standard by which acts can be judged. These standards are found in the natural law, in conscience, in reason and common sense, and in the authority of revelation. The ethical objectivist says that even if there is no human being to assert a good or bad value, good would still be intrinsic in the world because God, when He created the world, saw that it was good. The bad that is in the world only arrives when man tries to evade the designs of God.

I think it fair to say that the Catholic Church and certain other institutions stand for objective ethical values.

It is equally fair to say that those who stand against the Church do so (at least in part) because they are ethical subjectivists.

Where do you stand? And why?

i don’t think it makes sense to slice this issue as a theist/nontheist one.

morals are objective in the sense that we can make truth claims about them but they are not objective in that they are not themselves “things” but are a matter of human subjective experience. we can make objective claims about these subjective phenomena because there are objectively measurable ways of affecting the subjective experiences of humans and because there are objective differences (one’s everyone can agree upon) between different sorts of subjective experiences.

in short, this subjective/objective business is a complicated matter which probably doesn’t lend any clarity to the distinction you want to draw between the morality of theists and nontheists.

ontological objectivity only becomes an issue here if someone is willing to make the odd claim that The Good is an entity, so i should think that we all should agree that morals are subjective in that they are concerned with judgments about experiences rather than being objective things themselves. these judgments can either be thought to be subjective or subjective. if you think that there are true and false things to be said about what judgments ought to be made in certain circumstances, then you hold an epistemically objective view of morality. for example if you think there is a difference between misery and fulfillment that is not just a matter of personal preferences but instead depends on facts about people in such situations and facts about the situations, then you believe in objective morality. note that one does not have to believe in any particular sort of conception of God to believe in that sort of moral objectivity and it would be silly to believe in ontological moral objectivity.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

in short, this subjective/objective business is a complicated matter which probably doesn’t lend any clarity to the distinction you want to draw between the morality of theists and nontheists.

I beg to differ. There are relatively few objective moralists who are atheists, and altogether too many atheists who are moral objectivists for your point to have merit. Again, I did not say all atheists are moral subjectivists. But I believe the vast majority are. After all, if you believe there is a God, you can bet that God will get in the way of your personal preferences.

note that one does not have to believe in any particular sort of conception of God to believe in that sort of moral objectivity and it would be silly to believe in ontological moral objectivity.

We are not talking about ontological moral objectivity, whatever that means. Are you talking about not being able to put right and wrong under a microscope and examine them? I agree. Science has no business to do with ethics, though ethics has every right to have business with science.

 

[grannymh]

i don’t think it makes sense to slice this issue as a theist/nontheist one.

morals are objective in the sense that we can make truth claims about them but they are not objective in that they are not themselves “things” but are a matter of human subjective experience.

Technically one can make a truth claim about morals as a chosen system and one can also make a truth claim about morals as actions.

The question which needs to be asked is – What is the claim based on? Answer–the claim has to be based on and/or related to an objective or universal truth.

An universal truth is not related to any theist/non-theist issue. For example, the human person is worthy of profound respect can be accepted (proven if one wishes) by both theists and non-theists. As far as subjective experiences, none can change an universal objective truth. However, in some instances, one may actually subjectively perceive objective truth.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Rocinante]

in short, this subjective/objective business is a complicated matter which probably doesn’t lend any clarity to the distinction you want to draw between the morality of theists and nontheists.

I beg to differ. There are relatively few objective moralists who are atheists, and altogether too many atheists who are moral objectivists for your point to have merit.

do you have any objective evidence to support your claim or is this just your personal experience???

Again, I did not say all atheists are moral subjectivists. But I believe the vast majority are. After all, if you believe there is a God, you can bet that God will get in the way of your personal preferences.

sure, but if you believe that other people exist, you can bet that they will also get in the way of your preferences.

We are not talking about ontological moral objectivity, whatever that means. Are you talking about not being able to put right and wrong under a microscope and examine them? I agree. Science has no business to do with ethics, though ethics has every right to have business with science.

???

if moral truth exists then science obviously can study morality. you are correct that since morals are not ontologically objective, we can’t study morals themselves with microscopes and the like. though there are objective truths about what is and is not moral, values themselves are ontologically subjective, they relate to human experience. they are about how certain behaviors affect people and how we can live the best lives we can live. given that there is an epistemically objective difference between a good life and a bad one, science can help us determine what we ought to do to make our lives better.

rocinante

 

[Rocinante]

Technically one can make a truth claim about morals as a chosen system and one can also make a truth claim about morals as actions.

The question which needs to be asked is – What is the claim based on? Answer–the claim has to be based on and/or related to an objective or universal truth.

this is a roundabout way of saying that a given statement is only objectively true if it is based on an objective truth. moral claims are objectively true if they are based on true facts about the spiritual, emotional, intellectual, and physical, health of human beings and what best supports such human flourishing.

An universal truth is not related to any theist/non-theist issue. For example, the human person is worthy of profound respect can be accepted (proven if one wishes) by both theists and non-theists. As far as subjective experiences, none can change an universal objective truth. However, in some instances, one may actually subjectively perceive objective truth.

i agree. I don’t know why that other poster is insisting that this is a theism/nontheism issue. it is a cultural relativism versus moral truth issue. some people think that you can never say that another culture or religion is wrong about morals because morals are just whatever the given culture or religion say they are. if there is such a thing as moral truth then it is not the possession of any particular religion or culture.

rocinante

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Sometimes when asked whether paradigm A or B is correct, the answer can be found by asking whether A or B accomplishes what it sets out to do. Imagine that morality is a scapel that operates on a human soul. The soul, which Aquinas equates with the mind, can be represented by some arbitrary soft substance such as cork. The problem with subjective morality is that we cannot avoid constructing the scalpel from the same substance as the mind, for our minds are the subjects refered to by the term subjective. You end up with a cork scalpel that is used to operate on cork souls, whether your own or those of others. This ultimately has no effect, for cork does not cut cork. The idea behind objective morality is that it has a source other than our minds, and it is inviolate, meaning it is very difficult if not impossible to alter. This is a scalpel made of steel. It can cut cork, rubber, maybe even a tin can. For this reason it is very effective (when weilded by a good surgeon) at cutting moral decay out of a corky human mind. Subjective morality is popular not because it works, but because it is painless. Objective morality can hurt like hell, but anyone who has experienced it can vouch for its curative powers.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

i agree. I don’t know why that other poster is insisting that this is a theism/nontheism issue. it is a cultural relativism versus moral truth issue. some people think that you can never say that another culture or religion is wrong about morals because morals are just whatever the given culture or religion say they are. if there is such a thing as moral truth then it is not the possession of any particular religion or culture.

You are over reacting. The heart of the issue includes several things, only one of which is the theism/atheism issue. I’m not trying to make that the central issue. Certainly objective morality can be achieved by the natural light of reason and common sense, and you can be an atheist to do that. However, the moral relativists** tend to be in the atheist camp**. This is because they want to judge right and wrong from their own personal point of view, and they don’t want any higher power to get in their way. That is why you see so many atheists in these different threads promoting points of view that are not only contrary to reason and common sense, but also to religious laws.

As Dostoevsky argued, If God does not exist, everything is permitted. That is moral relativism, or subjective morality.

This is not to say there are not moral subjectivist who claim to be religious. There are, for example, Catholics who are for abortion and gay marriage. These people are simple minded. They are not the least bit consistent in their moral values. They rely neither on reason nor on their Church or their God to guide them. They are lost, wandering through a fog of silliness and easily led by the doctrines of political correctness promoted in the media and academia.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Moontown

Lord, I love that cork metaphor! Have saved it to my file. Thank you!

 

[4Horsemen]

The main problem, in my humble opinion, is that people look at acts of morality as being morals themselves. This is not logical. Morality are acts or a system of acts which are based on an objective truth. Even subjective morality can be based on the same objective truth. Even natural law is based on an objective truth.

When the objective or universal truth is not recognized it is difficult, near impossible, to maintain any kind of objective moral system…

To get to the basis of the origin of absolute morality, religionists can look to God. In fact, the 3 Abrahamic religions derive their moral code from the Ten Commandments. We, as Christians, accept that Natural Law is dependent upon Divine Law. Various cultures form their idea of objective morality, but it may not be in complete agreement with the Natural Law. (Think of the many ancient cultures that considered human sacrifice and other rituals as “normal” and a way to attain a type of Nirvana.)

That’s a good point you made that “subjective morality can be based on the same objective truth,” as can be seen in our own culture and other cultures as well. Our legal system is a code of laws mainly developed from absolute or objective morality, but also on subjective reasoning, such as the idea that the majority rules and decides truth. (Evidenced by cultural opinion on abortion, “gay rights,” and end-of-life decisions).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

4Horsemen

*Our legal system is a code of laws mainly developed from absolute or objective morality, but also on subjective reasoning, such as the idea that the majority rules and decides truth. (Evidenced by cultural opinion on abortion, “gay rights,” and end-of-life decisions). *

Certainly an amount of subjectivism prevails in the courts, at some times more than others. We are shocked when judges hand out very light sentences for serious felonies, while at other times they hand out overly heavy sentences for misdemeanors. There seems to be at these times a lack of objective grasp of the issues, and an unwillingness to be reasonable and just. You might say the judge has a personal preference that is not consistent with the objective facts of the case.