Posts
Challenges
Portals
Authors
Books
beta
Sign Up
Challenge
Does Objective Morality Exist?...
Friedrich Nietzsche called them humanity’s “herd instinct.” John Stuart Mill stated that they are the proportion to which an action leads to human happiness. Socrates believed that a “moral” individual would not harm an “immoral” individual. Philosophers (and scientists) have long debated the essence of morality, and different cultures have all at various times and even today possess differing ideas of what is morally acceptable. But one question above all else rings clear: do morals actually exist apart from our subjective human world, in the objective realm? To be clear, morals and ethics are something urgently required by society to function properly and to ensure human happiness and trust. For truly, a wold without morals would be a world of chaos and misfortune, presumably. With that established, however, do morals actually exist objectively? If so, who or what sets the rules and what are they? If not, why not? I invite the artists and philosophers of Prose. to take up the challenge, and am eager to read your takes on this. All philosophical and religious views are welcome.

Objective morality

Shame, guilt, embarrassment...

whispers of our individual core binary code?

We all have a ‘voice’ within, some call it a gut instinct.

Telling us what we should and should not do but what is that based on?

The truth of it is that my voice may not match your own which brings real question to the concept of objective morality for me.

Are the rules subjective or are we merely following a predetermined code. Written by the cosmos from the beginning of time?

Is morality something innate or created through environmental factors?

Nature vs nurture.

First let’s define the subject:

Objective morality is the belief in a universal morality, 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 must follow.

When considering morals, I often wonder about the ‘bad guy’ in a scenario. Did they start out thinking, “I’m going to be the bad guy in life”? Doubtful. I believe something formed them, forged them, into a lump of clay that’s hardened just enough for their circumstance. Sure, they had to begin with the clay itself. Whatever morality they possessed upon birth as the foundation, if objective morality is to be believed then we were all born with the exact same moral code. But in their case the code is ignored, overridden by environmental factors? Maybe even biological factors? I find this improbable.

Take myself for example, one could say that having been an avid reader I developed my empathetic ability which led to a strong moral compass. Before I could even read I was fed a steady diet of “Aesop’s Fables”, my all time favorite bedtime stories. Once I learned to read on my own, I traveled through countless worlds living many lives by walking in the shoes of others. Was my base morality created through the learned skill of empathy thus allowing me to cultivate it enough to maintain it throughout life? Or was I born with this understanding and merely nurtured it through empathy?

What is my answer to the great debate, the root of the question, are we born with an understanding of morality or is it something we are taught? I believe we learn and develop our morals through personality, education, social interactions, biological factors, etc.

Based on the definition of objective morality we are to assume that the concept of morality is as concrete as the forces of gravity, what goes up must come down. Or understood with as much assurance as the laws of physics. I do not believe morality can be so cut and dry, I see it as a complex concept that requires the skill of understanding. Therefore, I cannot assume it to be universal as understanding is not innate. Understanding, the ability to empathize, is something we learn and nurture within. I’ve found that teaching a child to develop understanding comes with the same challenges as teaching basic manners.

Let’s examine the age old moral understanding of “Thou shalt not kill” and ask, does this apply in a self defense scenario? If you feel that the outcome is relative to the circumstance then are we not breaking an objective moral by allowing it? Is this truly an unwritten code that we all know from birth? In my opinion, some among us would protect themselves with zero remorse if society and religion were not waiting in the shadows to condemn them. This fact, to my way of thinking, effectively negates the concept of objective morality altogether as clearly it will have been influenced by external factors.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which came first, objective morality or religion/societal rules set forth to govern our urges?

To believe in objective morality one would have to believe in a moral code with no color, black and white only, shades of gray would not exist. A rigid moral code to be followed per some universal programming. It is my theory that we are confusing objective morality with empathy, a learned skill.

Ultimately, for rules of society to work we have to believe that everyone has the same basic moral understanding. It gives society the right to tell those who don’t follow the ‘rules’ that they are wrong. This allows us to comfortably hold others accountable when they break the ‘code’ that we have been taught is universal.

Remember how I started this piece? Shame, guilt, embarassment...do you recall having those emotions as a small child or were you taught to have those emotions?

Perhaps the concept of morality was imagined simply to create the illusion of society...an attempt to curtail chaos.

~Orrrr maybe I just think too much ;)

10
4
16