Morality – Subjective or Objective?

”A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is

personally responsible for his society.” - Thomas Jefferson

Morality is a controversial topic, with opinions varying widely between

individuals, as well as cultures. We talk about what’s “right” and what’s
“wrong”, assuming everyone knows what those words mean and agrees upon
their definition, if not their particular applications. I would argue that in many
cases we actually do… but only intuitively. We often know, but do
not understand.

The first point of contention that must be resolved is whether morality is

objectively or subjectively derived. In modern times, it’s often argued that
morality varies with time, place, and culture - what may be considered right in
one place, is considered wrong in another. However, this doesn’t definitively
prove that morality is subjective; it may simply be a case of varying levels
of understanding relative to objective moral precepts. The observation of
cultural divergence alone won’t nearly suffice to establish a basis for morality.
A closer examination is needed…

Subjective Morality
Morality is often considered a personal matter – something unique to ourselves.
Often, this is thought to be broadly informed by the culture, with some variation
existing between individuals. There’s a sense that it’s presumptuous to criticize
another’s morality, except where it starkly conflicts with the most widely-
accepted notions, or our most precious personal tenets. But what do we really
mean when we talk about morality, and how does this apply to a subjective
model?
The word “morality” indicates a standard, or a set of rules, for human behavior.
A standard, by its very nature, must be hierarchically above (out of reach from)
that which it standardizes (in this case, human beings). If we have the power to
create or alter the rules, then we are the standard for the rules, they are not the
standard for us.

It also can never be the case that standards mutually standardize each other. It
must be a one-way relationship. I cannot have the power to define the
parameters of a standard, while at the same time the standard has the power to
define parameters for me. If man defines moral prescriptions – an act of
creation, or fabrication – then morality is powerless to prescribe anything to
man; as he is the source of its content, and thus prescribes to himself. In this
scenario, there is no thing called “morality” acting upon man; there is only man
alone, engaged in a masturbatory intellectual exercise.

In all creative endeavors, there must be a creator and that which is created. The
creator acts upon the creation, but the creation does not act upon the creator in
like kind. A painting does not paint the painter. There is no mutual power in this
relationship - hierarchy is implied. In this case, man is hierarchically above his
creation, and thus he is the standard for it, not the other way around.

Consider an established standard of behavior in the workplace. The employee

handbook states, “Employees may not drink beverages while at computer
stations.” This rule is established by the employer – it is subjective relative to
him. He created the rule and may alter it at any time. Thus, he is not bound by it.
To the employees, however, this rule is objective – it is thrust upon them as an
external phenomenon - and they are powerless to alter it. Their only choice is to
conform to it, or to ignore it and bear the consequences of that decision.
This must be so, for if the employees had the power to alter the rule, they too
would no longer be bound by it, and the illusory “standard” would fail to
standardize anyone’s behavior.

To assert man as the creator of morality is to say, ”We have made up this
standard and are bound by it… unless and until we deem otherwise.” And this
ability to alter is necessarily implied, as this is the inherent power of a creator
relative to his creation. How can this relationship to morality standardize man’s
actions? How can it bind him in any real sense? If you have the power to change
the standard, you may do so the moment it would bind you, and thus remain
unbound. It has no power to standardize your actions.

Calling this morality is to make morality indistinguishable from any other act of
decision-making – an unbounded process of personal evaluation and subsequent
conclusion. I may choose to refrain from eating steal because I deem it too
expensive, because I don’t like the taste, or because I think I “shouldn’t”, but
that’s all just opinion, or personal preference, regardless of what rationale is
concocted to support its formation.

Subjective morality obviates the very concept of morality as a standard for

human behavior. The notion of a “subjective standard” is oxymoronic. Of
course, we can set up rules for ourselves, but we’re really just playing a game of
pretend. It’s like a child saying, ”The floor is lava” or ”I can’t step on the
cracks”. There’s no real rule there, any more than when we make New Year’s
resolutions – we’re free to alter the rules at any time, and often do, so in reality
there is no rule at all.

Objective Morality
If we acknowledge that it’s been sufficiently demonstrated that subjective
morality cannot exist, morality must either be objective or non-existent. If
objective, it must be rooted in something unalterable by man, lest it become
subject to him, and thus subjective. What source, then, may morality have that is
unalterable, out of man’s reach, not subject to his input?

God would presumably be one such source, and this seems a viable option. It
may very well be the case that morality is what God says it is - a matter of
omnipotent caprice. If this be the case, then all further discussion is moot. But
this challenges one to prove not only the existence of God, but definitive
knowledge of His will. A tall order, to say the least.

A second option would be nature, reality, that which is extant and immutable -
Truth, or that which has undergone the formality of actually existing. This has
the potential to include the God option as well; as a case could be made that our
cohesive reality suggests intelligent design - a creation that implies a creator. If
God’s will may be known by any means, it may reasonably be known by His
creation. However, the inclusion of this addition need not be accepted (or even
entertained), as we need not know the source of nature for us to know
something about nature itself.

The use of the word “nature” here is not meant to imply the physical
environment or the behavior of all the various species that abound. Morality is
being considered as a standard for man’s behavior, particularly in dealing with
other men*; as morality concerns both the actor and that which is acted upon.
So the relevant aspect of nature is the inherent nature of the being in question,
or human nature.

(It is not my intent to ignore the relevancy of man’s actions toward other
species, however it is surely the case that whatever defines appropriate moral
action toward other species would apply to action toward other men as well,
whereas the opposite may or may not be the case. In light of this, focusing our
investigation on human interactions will serve as the broadest basis for
understanding morality on the whole)

Human nature is a divisive study, but by seeking the lowest common

denominator we find characteristics such as the need for air, food, and water;
the formation of thinking patterns in response to perceived phenomena
(implying susceptibility to conditioning), and free will. This latter quality, I
believe, establishes the most relevant basis for objective morality concerning
human interactions.

Man apparently has free will to choose his own behavior. Though this is
sometimes challenged by citing the aforementioned aspect of human nature
which makes man conditionable, or the fact that man does not even choose
which thoughts arise in his own consciousness. However, to found a denial of
free will upon these observations is to ignore where free will ultimately resides -
in the free will of attention.

We may not choose our next thought, what suggestions are offered by others, or
the phenomena we perceive, but we maintain the ability to either dwell upon
these, holding them within our conscious awareness, or to let them go in favor
of other ideas. ”As a man thinketh, so shall he be”, and it’s
the preponderance of our thought that contains the creative power. Thoughts
long held become beliefs, which in turn determine our worldview – the
foundation of our decision-making process - which in combination with
emotion, inspires our actions. In this way, man may choose his
conditioning deliberately by this focus, and thus assert his free will.

Free will, then, being a truth of man, must be duly acknowledged in our
dealings with him. To fail in this acknowledgement is to operate in denial, or
fallacy. To ignore this aspect of man’s nature by asserting our will upon him is
no less destructive than ignoring the laws of physics - inertia when driving a car,
or gravity when approaching a cliff.

Such acts of ignorance are “wrong” because they are incorrect; if not in

assessment (we may know our victim wills to remain unharmed), then in
expression (we harm him anyway). Nature shows no mercy and offers no
consolation for knowing gravity exists but launching ourselves off a cliff
anyway. Nature yields its effects based upon our actions in its realm; with no
consideration for our knowledge to the contrary.

This founds the argument for consent as a factor of great moral import, but
consent alone is not the basis for morality – the whole of man’s nature is.
The rights of man (those actions which do not deny his nature) are immutable,
and thus unalienable; such that even his consent to being acted upon without
due consideration of his nature offers no hope for circumventing the ill effects
that must naturally occur.

So we see that morality is a term that describes the particular subject

matter (man’s behavior), but not the relevant overall endeavor (alignment of our
actions with Truth). It is merely a branch of science, and need not include any
beliefs or assertions than would not be necessary in that arena. We also see that,
by this natural definition, the existence of morality cannot be questioned – it is
an extant reality, and cannot be altered by any action of man.

Furthermore, I would contend that no other wholly rational definition of

morality can be offered; as subjective morality is impossible, the God model
alone has no rational support, and no other objective source may be imagined.

In conclusion, morality defines an objective standard of “right” and “wrong”

behavior, with “right” actions being those which duly acknowledge the true
nature of the being in question, and “wrong” actions being those which do not.
Man is powerless to alter this, and it is not dependent upon time or place. No
amount of declarations, rationalizations, consensus, social rituals, or perceived
“necessity” will have the slightest effect upon it, and man will eternally be
bound to its cause-and-effect consequences.

Consider this in all you do, and have no expectation that conformity with culture
will equate to conformity with morality. Man-made problems abound, and no
system or methodology that denies the laws of nature holds any promise of
reprieve. As inconvenient as it may be, resolution of the world’s ills
will never come by external means of control; it must be rooted in
widespread internal mastery.

Morality is the only solution that actually solves.

-Brian Blackwell