Morality, Objective or Subjective

There has been a lot of discussion on morality amongst my peers in the last several months. I thought it would be relevant to post this pseudo-debate I had with Hudson Petty on the matter. He was advocating objective morality and I was advocating relative morality.

Here's his argument...

It's really hard to form an argument for objective morality without simply begging the question, but I'll try my best.

1) If objective morality doesn't exist then no one is morally responsible for anything

2) If moral responsibility doesn't exist then any morality, subjective or otherwise, is illusory. That is, subjective morality has no foundation in reality.

3) Subjective morality is illusory and has no foundation in reality

4) In order for something to exist, it must have a foundation in reality

In support of premise one: I'll use this definition of moral responsibility, "Moral responsibility is the status of morally deserving praise, blame, reward, or punishment for an act or omission, in accordance with one's moral obligations." If we adopt subjective morality then can we assign blame to a pedophile who rapes a child? My answer is no. The pedophile could have is own moral reasons for raping the child. Maybe he thinks children who are raped have to overcome adversity and this challenge makes them stronger, better human beings. In this way he could claim to be doing the child a favor as an act of morality. On subjective morality, it would be impossible to distinguish between the moral reasons for raping a child and the moral reasons for abstaining from child rape. Thus, we cannot assign praise or blame for moral decisions under subjective morality.

In support of premise two: Without moral responsibility any claim of morality is illusory. If we can't assign blame to the pedophile for raping the child, then any moral judgement of the pedophile is simply a fiction. That is, moral judgments have no foundation in reality. Thus, if moral responsibility doesn't exist then any morality, subjective or otherwise, is illusory.

In support of premise three: This is pretty simple. If all morality is illusory, then it follows that subjective morality is illusory.

In support of premise four: Reality is the only thing that exists. Therefore, anything that doesn't have a foundation in reality doesn't exist.

Thus, we are lead to the conclusion that subjective morality does not exist.

Here's my rebuttal of sorts:

I'll begin by defining my position on moral relativism. Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in moral disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong. Note that this says nothing about the use of morality. I am not a normative moral relativist.

I'd now like to discuss is-ought inasmuch as it deals with much of the content of today's debate. You may rest assured in my understanding of it because I am currently reading the book from which it comes. In book three of Hume's Treatise of Human Nature (1739), the philosopher discusses the tendency of writers to make statements that propose what ought to be based upon what is.

Here's what he says: “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.”

Hume was not particularly a moral relativist, but he did say that in order for ought statements to be made, one must appeal to an ethical principle. Being a Christian, Hume's ethics were related to Christianity. However, without the Christian faith, if we look at things without that supposition, morality appears relative. I will support this argument in today's debate. But first more Hume...

When combined with Hume's fork, the is-ought problem forms the relativist weapon Hume's Guillotine. The fork designates that knowledge either comes from logic and definitions or from observation. Hume concludes that morality can come from neither of these things.

This conclusion is reached in myriad of ways. I'll discuss a few of them. Firstly, the ambiguity of the outcomes associated with morality. Morality can be a cause and the effects of that cause can be numerous. What I mean to say is that morality can cause effects (which fit into is statements) that are dissimilar or incontiguous. Furthermore, effects can have multiple causes. These observations speak to the gap between is and ought statements in regards to logic and definition.

As for observations, observations function individually; therefore, moral judgments related to multiple people are of dubious validity. THAT is the argument of is-ought- that moral statements are generally of dubious morality.

I would now like to take this a step farther and advocate relative morality...

As for your first contention (which deals with responsibility). “If objective morality doesn't exist then no one is morally responsible for anything.” I think that this judgment, regardless of its truth-value, is largely inconsequential. There is no universal moral responsibility. Look at the world. Every act that you and I perceive as immoral is completed under the impression that said action is not immoral or even that said action must committed for one to be morally responsible (terror attacks). This paints a very ambiguous view of moral responsibility- a view that cannot be clarified using logic, definition, or observation (if Hume is upheld). It is not objective moral values that define what is right or wrong, but the unity of those with similar moralities (relative to each person) that make judgments as a body. Majority is the apex of morality's effectiveness.

This view translates well to your analogy of the pedophile. People can morally say that a pedophile is immoral. You are wrong in assuming otherwise. It is inconsequential whether or not the criminal thought he was morally justified because those around him think otherwise. The majority of people think that pedophilia is immoral; therefore, the pedophile cannot act on his morality without fearing serious consequences. This is where ethics come in handy. It is perfectly conceivable that a society could exist in which the majority thinks the contrary (that child-rape is permissible). This society would not violate any objective moral standards because they are nonexistent.

On a slightly separate note, I think that we must take into account the purpose of morality in this debate. I must ask how the objective moralist can say that some moral actions are wrong even if the entire populous agrees that they are not. For instance, if the Nazis had won WW2 and brainwashed the world into adhering to their moral views, objective moralists would typically say that what would've become a global morality would still be immoral. Of what purpose are said morals if people do not believe in them? Do they not become mere fluid ideas with no purpose? This is a question that you must answer in today's debate.

Back to the first contention, you are incorrect in saying that we cannot assign praise or blame to moral judgments if they are relative. “On subjective morality, it would be impossible to distinguish between the moral reasons for raping a child and the moral reasons for abstaining from child rape. Thus, we cannot assign praise or blame for moral decisions under subjective morality.” Majority distinguishes.

I think now is a good time for me to discuss the derivation of morality. It seems that it is human emotion that is the central human motivator. Even those motivated by logic do so because their emotions put them at relative ease in that decision. Hume thought that the passions are what decide morality (An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, 1751)- this is essentially what I mean by emotion. We make decisions in general because our emotions tell us to do so. Our emotions are stimulated by our environments and the experiences that occur to each one of us. These factors are entirely individual. From that, I must insist that not only our moralities, but our epistemologies are entirely unique. Therefore, a moral consensus is impossible. But luckily, many people come have similar passions and similar emotions. This is why laws are easily made outlawing things like murder and child-rape- most people's passions tell them that such actions are immoral. Of course, there are exceptions, but majority reduces their influence.

Morality is a human decision that functions relative to individuals (relative morality). There is extensive evidence to uphold this (the above discussion for example). That morality is a transcendent concept that exists regardless of human decision (objective morality) is a shaky statement that has little basis. If there was justice in this world I may see otherwise, but there is not and I cannot. I must ask, what is the basis of objective morality? I would also like to hear some evidence for this basis. Also, faith won't cut it...

Onto your second contention... “If moral responsibility doesn't exist then any morality, subjective or otherwise, is illusory. That is, subjective morality has no foundation in reality.” This is simple. Relative moral judgments relate to reality. When any person moralizes their reasoning must relate to reality. People who moralize similarly then unite and implement their moral agendas. This is how the world works. Relative morality relates to reality, despite its fluidity.

I think your 3rd and 4th contentions have already been addressed. I would like to know why you keep distinguishing subjective morality from relative morality. Please define the two...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hudson never posted a rebuttal and the argument ended there. He felt that he could not answer many of my questions or rebut many of my points. If you are an objective moralist and feel you can, please comment. Thanks!