Ok, so as long time member but an infrequent poster, I want to write a little preface before this post. I don't consider myself Christian though I grew up in a culture steeped in the Christian tradition and its values. I don't consider myself anti-Christian, but I take issue with a few things that Christians sometimes advocate for. I respect a person's right to choose their faith or lack of except when that faith meets in the "public square" and those without faith (or of a different faith) are asked to make special considerations based on one particular faith alone.
This topic is about morality which hits home for most Christians. it's hard to have this discussion without inadvertently questioning the foundation of Christain faith and belief, at least for most people who identify as Christian. It isn't my goal to invalidate Christianity, though morality is so intertwined in Christian faith and for some, one of the main reasons for believing in god in the first place. Thus, this will be a sensitive topic and I'll do my best not to insult those of the Christin faith, but if you are a Christian who is easily offended, may I suggest you look at other topics.
Respectfully,
E4E1
It is my assertion that all morality is subjective, however, morality can be objective within a value framework.
Let me try with an analogy.
How tall are you?
Now, are you objectively that tall?
Assuming that you give your answer in a formally recognized measurement like the Imperial or Metric system (just to name 2), the answer is YES! After all, if when you stand beside a ruler that is graduated like every other ruler and you measure 6' tall, you are objectively 6' tall relative to the system of measurement.
But are these systems themselves objective? Of course not. The lines on a ruler aren't an objective standard that exists independently of us. We created it, subjectively. Further, the distances we chose to represent inches, feet, yards, and mile weren't chosen at random or arbitrarily, they were chosen to achieve real-world goals (making the point that subjectively does not mean random or arbitrary).
The point being is that it is possible for objectivity to exist within a subjective framework.
A foot is objectively a foot. If a being on the other side of the universe refers to a foot as something other than the distance we all recognize, then objectively the being is not talking about the imperial system of measurement.
I hope that makes sense. I also think this is where a lot of confusion comes from. We all know good from bad and the idea that we need to instructed what is good and bad, to me is silly.
Take the proposition, vanilla ice cream is is better than chocolate. One would struggle to find a statement more subjective than that!
But if I said, eating vanilla ice cream is better than eating a bowl of broken glass. If I said Vanilla is better, is that just my opinion?
Well, that depends, if we agree that most people value their lives, within the context of that value, it is objectively true that eating vanilla ice cream is better than eating a bowl of glass. I don't need to be told to know that it's true.
And so....
All morality is based on individual value judgments regarding any given moral issue at hand. Because nothing has value apart from a subject to value it, all value judgments are subjective. To be objective the value judgment would have to come from the object being valued, and that’s not possible.
So, when it comes to deciding what is morally right and what is morally wrong, a subject (a person) must apply their subjective valuation of the issue before they can decide where they stand. For example, if a person places a high value on the sanctity of marriage, they will probably consider adultery to be immoral because it violates the sanctity of marriage. A person who places a low value on telling the truth might not see lying as immoral.
For morality to be objective, it must be based on something other than a value judgment of some kind, and it must exist apart from human valuations and be immune to them. Thus, it would apply to all humans all the time regardless of what any human thinks about the particular moral issue. I can’t think of any moral issue that meets those requirements.
For example, if it was objectively true that lying is always immoral, and telling the truth is always moral, then all the people who sought to hide Jews from the Germans during WWII acted immorally whenever they lied to German authorities as to the whereabouts of any Jews the Germans sought. Clearly, however, we would understand it to have been immoral for people to give up the locations of Jewish families in hiding if those people were, in fact, trying to hide and protect those Jewish families. So it cannot be true that it is objectively immoral to lie.
Now, it’s possible to objectively evaluate morality itself, but that’s not the same as morality being objective.
So how do we determine what is right?
First, let me say that morality is not an individual pursuit. That is, people can have ideas about what they think morality should be, but there is no such thing as "individual morality". Just as there is no such thing as a married bachelor. Let's use a sports analogy here. In the game of Soccer, it is considered wrong for anyone but the goalie to use their hands. What if one person picked up the ball and carried it to the other end ignoring all the rules and then proclaimed that he had his own interpretation of the rules?
What do you think would happen to that player?
Similarly, if a ran a store and you came in and asked for a 10lb roast and I handed you a 1lb roast and charged you the 10lb price, you'd rightly be pretty upset. If I said my "personal standard of measurement" was different than the commonly accepted standard, what do you think might happen?
Lastly, what would you say to a person who commits a heinous crime and then simply proclaims that their standard of right and wrong is their own and therefore you can't judge them, what do we do with these kinds of people?
So what we're left with is a framework that looks like this:
Values--->Morality--->Ethics.
Thus it is what we value that lays the foundation for what we believe is right and wrong. Morality is a social construct where people come together and share their ideas about what is right and wrong based on the values they hold.
If we have been wrong about morality in the past, and of course we have, it's because we lacked information and understanding. The things we believed were wrong and that in turn lead to ideas and beliefs that resulted in values that did not live up to the standards we create for ourselves.
For example, the Constitution of the United States says "All men are created equal", but that's not how it worked in practice is it? Why? Because our beliefs and understanding lead to ideas that weren't consistent with our values.
There is more and I suspect that some of you will point out what you see to be flaws in my thinking and I look forward to filling in the gaps in my responses to any challenges I get.
-Cheers
