I am sick of society’s subjective mindset on morality.
However, for the sake of discussion:
Let me ask:
Where does society learn to draw the line on subjective morality?, as subjective morality never works…
Now, for those who want to argue the proponents of subjective morality and say objective morality doesn’t exist, let me leave you another question:
Is the fact that there are no objective truths, objectively true??
(Careful on this question…)
What I notice is that it can be easy to confuse subjective morality (“morality is whatever I want it to be”) with an objective morality that is different than one’s own.
Simply stated – if others believe something is morally permissible that you believe is morally forbidden, it can easily appear that they are subjectivists.
Consider the difference in the morality of a Catholic and an observant Jew, for instance.
Observant Jew: “the consumption of pork is against the commandment of God and is intrinsically immoral.”
Catholic: “I believe the consumption of pork is neither moral, nor immoral. Our religion believes that all meats are clean. Whether or not to consume pork is not a matter of morality at all, but of subjective preference.”
Observant Jew: “circumcision is commanded by God, as per the Bible.”
Catholic: “circumcision is neither moral nor immoral. It is a matter of subjective preference for parents, whether they want to circumcise their male children, or not.”
From the perspective of the observant Jew, the Catholic may indeed seem rather relativistic in his thinking. In reality, however, the Catholic
does have an objective morality – quite rigorous, in its own terms – simply one that is different than the objective morality of the observant Jew.
Now apply this to secular sphere:
–“rape, pedophilia, child abuse, murder, theft, bullying, racism, intolerance, bigotry are objectively wrong” (our secular society comes down extremely hard on these behaviors and does not at all accept that they are a matter of subjective preference)
–“a gay relationship is neither intrinsically moral nor immoral, but a matter of subjective preference”
You can say that secular society had no *right *to proclaim that gay relationships were no longer a matter of morality, but this is not dissimilar to the Jew who claims that Christians had no right to change worship from Saturday to Sunday; to lift the prohibition against pork; or to make circumcision optional. To the observant Jew, these are essential tenets of morality that were decreed by God Himself.
What you’ll also see are secular moralists who claim that this change in morality was done in the name of objective moral standards, such as tolerance, justice, equality, and freedom from bigotry or discrimination. As we know, there is much idealism on both sides of the issue.
So an objective morality still exists, in the secular sphere; but it is certainly non-Christian. And – as with the Catholic versus the observant Jew – there are behaviors that the Christian believes are intrinsically immoral, that the secular humanist believes are neither intrinsically moral nor immoral, but a matter of subjective preference.
