On Morality (Second Article), Whether Morality is Objective?

SECOND ARTICLE

Whether Morality is Objective?

Objection 1. Thomas Hobbes says that morality is mere subjective preference. What we like we call good, what we don’t like we call evil. For example, we like honesty and courage so we call them good, but we dislike dishonesty and cowardice so we call them bad. We do this in the same way we judge food. What we like (ice-cream) we call good, what we don’t like (asparagus) we call bad. Moral preferences are subjective personal preferences therefore morality is not objective.

Objection 2. It is wrong to lie for one’s own selfish gain. But it is not wrong to lie in order to save the life of another. If a friend was being pursued by a murderer and sought refuge in your home and the murderer asked you where your friend was, it would not be wrong to lie in order to save his life, in fact in this case it would be wrong to tell the truth. Morality is relative to the situation and not objective.

Objection 3. Men at different times and different ages lived by different moral codes. Therefore there is no objective Moral Code.

On the contrary, Leibniz says that moral truths are analogous to mathematical truths. Moral truths are fixed, necessary and eternal truths which must be the same everywhere.

I answer that, Math indeed provides the best analogy to ethics. 2+2= 4. This is objectively true for all possible men at all possible times whether or not men understand and recognize this truth. From the discovery of one mathematical truth we may infer that there is an entire field of mathematical truths containing laws which we may discover.

In the same way there are moral laws that are objectively true for all men possible men at all possible times whether or not all men understand and recognize these truths. It is always wrong to torture children for entertainment. This is an objective moral law that reason, feeling, experience, and authority all agree upon. From the discovery of this moral truth we may infer that there is an entire field of moral truths containing laws which we may discover.

Reply Obj. 1. David Hume says that all regularly constituted men have the same tastes. These tastes allow a man to not only subjectively determine what he likes and dislikes, but also objectively determine what is good and what is bad. A normal man’s tastes will allow him to decide what flavor of ice-cream or soda he subjectively likes best, but they will also allow him to objectively tell the difference between fresh and spoiled milk. In the same way a normal man can objectively tell the difference between a good and rotten act.

Reply Obj. 2. Indeed, in most situations one ought to tell the truth, while in other situations one ought not to tell the truth. This does not take away from the objective nature of morality. A man ought not steal. But a man may steal in order to save the life of a starving child. The life of a human is more valuable than property. Therefore a man may break the moral law of property on behalf of the moral law of honoring human life. A man ought to obey all the moral laws, but when they conflict he ought to obey the higher.

Morality is objective; it is not completely reducible to the relativity of a situation. It is completely objective in that a man ought to obey the whole Law, but when two provisions are in conflict, the Law dictates that we obey the higher provision. We are to honor animal life, but human life is greater than animal life. We ought to obey the government and God, but if their laws are in conflict, we are to obey God and not man. In that way morality is completely objective though its applications may vary with differing situations.

Reply Obj. 3. As mentioned above (Article 1), there is much more agreement than disagreement among men regarding the Moral Code. Second, just because a certain culture has not discovered a certain moral truth does not mean that truth lacks existence. Only the ancient Mayans, Indians, and Babylonians discovered zero. This did not mean that the truth of the concept of zero did not apply to the ancient Chinese or Romans, only that they failed to discover this truth. In the same way, the fact that a culture does not recognize a moral truth does not mean that truth lacks existence; it only means they have failed to discover it.