There has been a debate as to how morality came to be. In this post, we will discuss objective morality, the arguments for it, and the arguments against it. There are many philosophical interpretations of morality, but let's keep it simple. Morality is our belief about what is wrong and what is right when it comes to our behavior. Morality can come from our religion, philosophy, or laws.
Sometimes, morality is black and white, meaning the behavior is either fully good or fully bad. Religious morality tends to think this way. Other times, morality may be more gray. Lying isn't a good moral action, but there may be some instances where lying will cause the least harm, and therefore be more just. Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation.
Some people may think of objective morality as commandments from God, while other people may think the universe has some objective rules we may follow. There are certainly some arguments for objective morality to be had.
Religious people will define objective morality according to the commandments of their god s. Other people may look at some universal laws, such as murder, as inherently bad. The opposite of objective morality is subjective morality. Subjective morality says that our morals are all human-made, and can vary from person to person. While there are strong morals shared by most of humanity, such as killing, many morals are subjective as to whether or not they are correct.
One who believes in God believes that our morals come from God, and because God cannot change or be questioned, this means that His morals are objective. While there are many interpretations of religious texts, as well as many religions, religious people tend to point out universal laws God has made, such as the Ten Commandments.
There are secular arguments for objective morality as well. Proponents believe that there are many universal laws that make some morals objective, such as murder. Killing someone in cold blood, and not because of self-defense, is not morally justified.
It ends a person's life, hurts their family, and makes you the monster. Proponents of objective morality believe this to be the case. If someone has a moral code that says murder and stealing are okay, who's to say they are wrong? The belief is that there has to be something or someone to govern what is right or wrong. One argument against objective morality deals with the fact that what we consider to be moral and immoral seems to change with time, and depends on where you live.
Different countries and faiths will have different morals. There may be some similarities, such as viewing murder and stealing as harmful, but these morals tend to come from empathy, which is a trait we've evolved with. This is true not only for people who are outside the moral circle, but also animals in all but a few moral systems. We can appreciate each cultural system as uniquely adapted to its environment without rejecting the concept of objective truth.
We can also identify features of a cultural system as qualify as objectively immoral, if they disrupt cooperation within the moral circle. If by harm we mean causing pain, then this is problematic because pain is just a proximate mechanism. I look forward to continuing this conversation. I am interested in your concept of harm. In common conversation, these are different categories of things, but in the domain of morality they may be closely related. Your reasoning seems to be circular and inconclusive.
Why must we be moral? What if in my morality harming people is good? What if harming people accomplishes a greater good? What if the harm was done while trying to prevent harm from happening to someone else? Just some thoughts…. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam.
But don't worry! Our trusted writing agency Liuxue Savior UK can help you write high quality British essays, thus reducing your stress and allowing you to enjoy studying in the UK! Jason, Based on your game theory work, I was expecting you to be advocating for a morality as cooperation perspective. Or are you advocating for something slightly different?
I ask because I see the morality as cooperation perspective as implying different conclusions than you have described. But that does not seem to be what you are concluding. Have I misunderstood? Issue 73, 20th May This gives us the following four-fold set of possibilities: When people are concerned about morality being relative , often they are just referring to an unease about morality being subjective — in that the truth depends purely on the attitudes of the individual speaker.
Love the iai? Sign up to get exclusive access. Your Email Address. The hypocrisy of the good. Humanity beyond nature. Is morality a fashion statement? Being seen to be good. The corruption of science. Want to continue reading? Continue Reading Already a subscriber? Latest Releases. New theories of the universe. The new artistic revolution. The power of apocalypse. Join the conversation Sign in to post comments or join now only takes a moment. Liz Bee 2 September Im really excited about this..
Get unlimited access to all our videos Sign in. Sign in. Subscribe to enjoy full access All you can watch. Have your say. The objective component is provided by the laws of Game Theory.
The subjective element is the strategy selected by a player attempting to maximise their personal reward. Game theory describes the competitive or collaborative strategies that a rational agent can use to maximise their benefit in any situation.
In this context, a rational agent is someone capable of thinking about then acting in their own best interest. Often, cooperation provides the optimum outcome for all interacting parties, but at any time an agent might break the contract in an attempt to increase their own rewards.
Such an action might have short term benefits, but it has been shown that in a series of interaction games, such a cheat will lose out because the others will soon refuse further cooperation. There are, therefore, substantial individual and group advantages to keeping such a contract.
I would argue with the Mathematical Platonists that abstract mathematical ideas are mind-independent entities. Like any other object, they can be discovered and verified by anyone with the right equipment — in this case a skill in mathematics. Therefore, the outcome of our moral behaviour, subject to the laws of relationships determined by the mathematical objects of Game Theory, in this sense are objective.
However, the strategies are subjectively chosen by agents acting in what they perceive to be their own best interest. Their choices may or may not coincide with supporting the social order.
Human agents are playing many parallel games in an ever-changing social and physical environment, with no guarantee of group success. An agent, however, is always free to challenge the code by choosing the antisocial strategy. In such cases the agent will find themselves in peril of retribution in the form of tribal or civil law.
Two types of morality co-exist virtually everywhere and at all times, yet they are, for the most part, poles apart. They are morality in theory and morality in practice , and they align with objective morality and subjective morality respectively. I will demonstrate what I mean by example, but first let me elaborate on morality as it is practiced.
For most people, morality stems from their surrounding cultural norms. For example, in some societies, one can be made to feel guilty about the most natural sexual impulses. Guilt and sex have been associated over generations, but it is usually lop-sided: women are often forced to carry the greater burden of guilt, and homosexuals can be forced to feel criminal.
Both these examples illustrate how cultural norms can determine the morality one accepts. In some societies there are cultural clashes — usually generational — where the same moral issue can inflame opposing attitudes.
In India in December , a young woman, Jyoti Singh, was raped and murdered on a bus after she went to a movie with her boyfriend. A documentary by British filmmaker Leslee Udwin explored the cultural schism in India over this issue. Some including the lawyers representing the gang who committed the crime believed that the girl was responsible for her own fate, whereas others campaigned to have the rape laws strengthened. In many cultures it is taught that God or the gods determine moral values, yet these are often the most prescriptive, oppressive, and misogynistic examples of enforced cultural mores.
On the other hand, morality in theory is very simple: it is to treat everyone the same and give everyone the same rights, be they men, women, homosexuals, people of different faith, or with a different skin colour.
However, one only has to look at the treatment of refugees to realise how even the most liberal societies struggle with this precept.
This question initially seems simple, as there appear to be many things that most people would automatically believe to be intrinsically morally wrong, in all times and place, such as murder, lying, and theft. But after reflection, many would agree there are also cases where these things may be acceptable. For example, stealing medicine to save the life of a critically ill child, or lying to someone over the whereabouts of your friend whom they express an intention to kill.
However, people would not necessarily give the same reasons why these are exceptions to the rule. Some may argue there is greater moral responsibility to a friend than to a stranger, so, in this circumstance, lying in their defence is acceptable; but others may argue a hierarchy of moral actions: so although lying, or stealing, is ethically wrong, not acting to prevent a murder, or to save the life of a child, is a far greater wrong.
Others still may stress the importance of social mores in ethical situations. In conclusion, despite a widespread belief there are things that are inherently morally correct apart from in exceptional circumstances, there is lack of consensus on what these exemptions are, or when and why they are acceptable.
This is what makes debate over whether there is truly an objective morality uncertain, and makes moral philosophy the challenging preoccupation it is.
The common belief is that there are two kinds of knowledge: subjective and objective. The latter is held to be more certain than the former, and is usually contrasted with it.
However, the distinction is ultimately untenable.
0コメント