Archived from Palomar College Communications Department 2019 Submissions
By: H. Elizabeth Williams
“There ain’t no sin and there ain’t no virtue. There’s just stuff people do.” - John Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath.
All morality is based on individual value judgments regarding any given moral issue at hand. Because nothing has value apart from a subject to value it, all value judgments are subjective. To be objective the value judgment would have to come from the object being valued, and that’s not possible.
So, when it comes to deciding what is morally right and what is morally wrong, a subject (a person) must apply their subjective valuation of the issue before they can decide where they stand. For example, if a person places a high value on the sanctity of marriage, they will probably consider adultery to be immoral because it violates the sanctity of marriage. A person who places a low value on telling the truth might not see lying as immoral.
A great philosopher, David Hume, stated in his An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals that “morality is determined by sentiment”, saying that “in moral deliberations” the “approbation or blame … cannot be the work of the judgement”, but is instead “an active feeling or sentiment.” To believe morality is subjective is to believe there is no absolute moral law. I believe morality is subjective and there's two types of morality: societal morality and your own personal one.
Morality is a man-made concept, defined by the society you live in, and the known fact that there is no morality in nature. Society also changes, which in turn makes morality change. Take a look at our history. It was once moral to own slaves, and now it is seen as immoral.Times change and so do our morals. To say that morality is objective is to say that notions of right and wrong are universal and fixed for all times; It is a fact that some things were thought of as good in the past that are now thought as bad, making it purely subjective. If morality was objective there would be at least one rule throughout every society that has ever existed that was believed as this is not the case. Morality MUST be subjective. As Philosophy Stack Exchange stated in “Morality Is Subjective?” “there is no common moral law that ALL people agree on.” A popular argument against this is murder, but what constitutes murder is itself subjective for example soldiers during a war or human sacrifices to a god. If objective moral codes existed like "murder is bad" than there would be no murderers. But there are murderers. The reason most societies outlaw murder is because it is for the logical salvation of the society(has little to do with individual salvation).
Morality is personal because what a person decides as 'morally right' or 'morally wrong' is down to their own ideals and principles. If morality wasn't subjective, humanity as a whole would be able to agree on a lot of topics that we clearly cannot agree on. Warfare, especially wars from antiquity, is a great example that shows that morality is subjective. In order for morality to be objective, it must be right or wrong regardless of human perception. Which seems impossible considering morality does not exist without human consciousness to perceive and interpret it. In time of war, the enemy is always depicted as not human, god-less and evil. I remember reading of how the soldier was surprised when he met the enemy, that they were human and mostly puppets of their evil leaders. Human perception is subjective because no one individual can interpret another's perception. For example: "It is morally wrong to kill another person" is subjective to the person who is faced with the prospect of killing another person. If, say, the person is going to kill another person who has strapped themselves with explosives and is about to blow up a school, then that person may feel morally justified in killing the other. On the other hand, the person strapped with explosives might feel a similar moral justification for what they are about to do. It might not be what you think is moral, be that doesn't make it any less moral to them, and that is precisely the point. As stated in the beginning, A great philosopher, David Hume, stated in his An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals that “morality is determined by sentiment”, saying that “in moral deliberations” the “approbation or blame … cannot be the work of the judgement”, but is instead “an active feeling or sentiment.” Morality is a result of outward sense (how we perceive it) and an inward sentiment (our internal thoughts of it). If morality was truly objective, then there would be no disagreement between people on what is 'good' or 'bad' but there is. For example, person A and person B are in the park enjoying a pleasant day when suddenly they see a man being beaten and robbed by another. That evening, they are in a pub and discuss what happened, person A believes it was morally bad while person B believes it was (objectively speaking) neither good nor bad. Now, the event itself can't be good or bad at the same time as one negates the other. Perhaps the man who was beaten and robbed did the same to the other, perhaps the person who committed the act was in desperate need of money to buy medicine. It’s all down to opinion.
Response:
For morality to be objective, it must be based on something other than a value judgment of some kind, and it must exist apart from human valuations and be immune to them. Thus, it would apply to all humans all the time regardless of what any human thinks about the particular moral issue. I can’t think of any moral issue that meets those requirements.
For example, if it was objectively true that lying is always immoral, and telling the truth is always moral, then all the people who sought to hide Jews from the Germans during WWII acted immorally whenever they lied to German authorities as to the whereabouts of any Jews the Germans sought. Clearly, however, we would understand it to have been immoral for people to give up the locations of Jewish families in hiding if those people were, in fact, trying to hide and protect those Jewish families. So it cannot be true that it is objectively immoral to lie.
“Morality encompasses two concepts: ethics and morals. Ethics, according to merriam Webster, “is a set of moral principles, usually seen as doing the right thing” (but how do you know what the right thing is?). Morals, according to merriam webster, “is relating to principles of right and wrong behavior”. If i was to find common ground with my opponent I’d say that ethics are the objective component while morals are subjective. If morality consisted exclusively of principles imposed by a social system (ethics), there would be no room for personal interpretation. So, morality requires individual perception and maybe with objectivity.
My opponent agrees with the statement that morals are questions of good and evil. But how do we know whats good and what’s evil? My opponent said “Morality is an essential part of culture, and a person should be moral in order to live a cultured social life with others.” Well, may I ask which culture? Not all cultures have the same morals or there would be no conflict in the world and no egocentrism either. And may I ask, when you say “a person should be moral in order to live a cultured social life with others”, is it should be or has to be? Surely a person can have a different set of morals then their social setting and still get along fine (example: maybe serial killers like Ted Bundy or Meredith from the Office season 5 episode 3, the one my opponent was referring to I believe). You say morality exists in today’s society, but which society? Do you believe morals differ from person to person? Because if so then you believe morality is personal, which means morality is subjective. My opponent stated that morals are embedded in us from an early age, which I will agree with, but what my opponent fails to realize is that each person learns from a different family and in a different society and culture, therefore there is no universal objective morality. It’s subjective.
My opponent says that we are taught that stealing is a crime and that it is wrong to break the law. She needs to realize that the law and morals are two different topics. Besides, what if you grew up in the mob? I assure you then your morals that you grew up on and what you were taught would be different. Stealing could be seen as borrowing in someone’s mind. Our minds are different. We can’t tell what a person is thinking and if we claimed to have been then we are claiming the theory of mind. Which isn’t a good debate tactic if you ask me. My opponent says that we know right from wrong, but sometimes someone’s wrong could be someones right. Take abortion for example.
My opponent says a traffic ticket is given to a driver who breaks the law and not someone who drives at the normal speed, but if we’re using pop-culture references here take my mobster example and remember that Great Gatsby scene. You know, the one where he’s speeding down the street and when a cop pulls up all he had to do was show him a card with his name on it and he was good to go. Didn’t seem like he had an “obligation” to pay fees and enroll in traffic school. Morals differ from person to person, making it personal and therefore making it subjective.
My opponent said that “murder is something that we know is wrong and we should not do it because it’s a principle that we learned based on our early teachings. That murder is not only a crime but a sin based on most religious beliefs.” Learnings can be changed based on experience as well. The murder argument is flawed as it appeals to emotions as a collective, not the individual, but i’ll play into my opponents lead for a moment.
Do you believe murder is universally wrong? How? With the 10 commandments, noting that America founded on Judeo-christian beliefs and the separation of church and state, how is that universal if it is just in the US? What about in countries where murder is common like Jamacia, Honduras, South Africa (Source: world population review). It can’t be universalized because of culture differences. So, just in the US then? What if there are several different cultures in the US? Which ones do you exclude? How do we know which culture is right? How is one’s culture superior to others?
Murder is not absolute but societal. If you believed it was absolute then I must ask, how would you support that killing someone in war is okay or killing someone in self-defense is okay? Keeping in mind laws can be separate from your morals, where do you draw the line? In time of war, the enemy is always depicted as not human, god-less and evil. I remember reading of how the soldier was surprised when he met the enemy, that they were human and mostly puppets of their evil leaders. Murder can be morally justified if their morals say it is.
Lastly, my opponent says it is “important to follow all laws and take after what we have been taught in past generations.” So, I’m assuming we “take after” slavery and segregation today in the US at least right? Wrong.
Morality is a personal idea. A person has to really search for answers inside themselves with posed with issues concerning humanity. Answers to morality questions are rarely straightforward and each person is entitled to their own opinion about what is right and what is wrong. Therefore morality is a very subjective thing that has nothing set in stone. As society changes so does perception. What may be seen as wrong then may be accepted now in some countries like the US (LGBTQIA) and what may be seen as right then is seen as wrong now (slavery/segregation). And in some countries you can get killed for being part of the LGBTQIA community and slavery still exists and seen as moral in some parts of the world. What we may see as wrong is right to others and vise versa.
“There ain’t no sin and there ain’t no virtue. There’s just stuff people do.” John Steinbeck, Grapes of Wrath.
Work Cited
“Absolutely Subjective Moral Values.” Analogical Thoughts, 25 Jan. 2018, www.proginosko.com/2018/01/absolutely-subjective-moral-values/.
“ChangeAView (Beta) – Discuss Differently.” Change A View – Discuss Differently, changeaview.com/post/pqu/objective_morality_does_not_exist_and_therefore_any_moral_debate_is_unsolvable.
“Ethics - Introduction to Ethics: Subjectivism.” BBC, BBC, www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/subjectivism.shtml.
“Is Morality Subjective?” Debate.org, www.debate.org/opinions/is-morality-subjective.
“Subjective Morality – Not What It Seems?” Open Parachute, 2 Sept. 2012, openparachute.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/subjective-morality-not-what-it-seems/
“Subjective: Meaning of Subjective by Lexico.” Lexico Dictionaries | English, Lexico Dictionaries, www.lexico.com/definition/subjective.
“Morality Is Subjective?” Philosophy Stack Exchange, 1 Apr. 1968,philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/52986/morality-is-subjective.
“Morals.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morals.
Murder Rate By Country Population. (2020-02-17). Retrieved 2020-03-26, from http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/murder-rate-by-country/
Comments