Skip to main content

Objective morality -- really?

By Rebekah ~

Some people seem to feel very insecure about the idea there's no objective morality by which to control others. Yet, the question isn't if we want there to be some transcendent objective moral code; it's whether or not one actually exists anywhere. If we believe in one, yet it doesn't exist, then we have a problem because everybody will be simply elevating and conflating their own subjective values to the level of the one true objective morality. This is how many terrorists acts, the crusades, witch hunts, and religious wars have come about such as the Catholics and Protestants killing each other brutally because each believed their subjective interpretations of the supposed objective morality is the correct one. If there were actually an objective morality in the Bible, people wouldn't need to apply their own values and interpretations to it

One difference between believing there is an objective morality to be learned and an alternative view that we have evolved on our own, often overlapping (i.e., subjective moral values based on our genetics, environment, and life experiences) is that the latter comes with more room for compromise, and the former adds fuel to the feeling that only one side is objectively correct and any opposition to it is evil.

When it comes to subjective values, we do feel strongly about our own and are willing to act upon them, but we also don't have the same level of conviction that the other side must therefore be evil and objectively wrong. Which is how religious aderents are so often willing to believe the 'others' deserve ridiculously severe punishment.

Ultimately, if it can't be demonstrated that an objective morality exists anywhere, then the shared subjective values hypothesis is closer to the reality of the situation, and believing that which is closest to reality sets us up to make wiser choices and cause less harm.