Defining Morality: A Clash of Objective and Subjective Perspectives

What is moral or immoral?

Morality is a complex and often controversial topic, with varying perspectives from different cultures, religions, and philosophical backgrounds. In this article, we will explore the definitions of objective and subjective morality and its implications.

Objective Morality

Morality has long been attributed to a higher power or a transcendent source, like the one true God in many religious beliefs. According to this viewpoint, a single, objective moral framework exists, dictating what is right and wrong. This framework is not subject to human interpretation but is held to be universal and eternal. The moral principles established by this higher power cover most scenarios and provide clear guidelines for human behavior.

However, it is important to note that there may be situations that do not clearly fit within this established framework. Nevertheless, the principles established are seen as covering the vast majority of scenarios, providing a solid foundation for moral decision-making.

The definition of objective morality requires omniscience and perfect goodness, which are attributes ascribed to God in monotheistic religions. Consequently, only God can definitively define what is morally right or wrong. Any attempt by humans to determine their own morality would lead to chaos, as individual perspectives and values vary widely.

Subjective Morality

While some hold a belief in an objective moral framework, others argue that morality is a subjective concept. Each individual forms their own values and standards of right and wrong, which can be influenced by personal experiences, cultural background, and interactions with others. These values may be developed independently or borrowed from others, filling gaps in one's moral framework.

The idea that morality can be determined by individuals leads to a relativistic perspective, where each person’s subjective perspective is valid but may not be universally applicable. This viewpoint suggests that while one person may form their moral perspective based on their subjective experiences, others are not obligated to adhere to these perspectives. The significance of subjective morality lies in the potential for personal and relational growth, rather than in defining broader moral principles.

Application of Morality

Let us consider some specific cases to understand how morality is applied in practice.

Moral Revenge

The term "revenge" often carries negative connotations, but let us examine the concept of moral revenge. revenge involves retaliating against someone who has wronged you, often in a manner that mirrors the original act. In many scenarios, the act itself, whether it is beating someone who beat you, can be justified as moral revenge. Conversely, it can also be seen as abuse. This ambiguity underscores the need for a consensus from onlookers to determine whether an act constitutes moral revenge or abuse.

Moral revenge requires moral individuals to assess and judge the situation. The concept of moral revenge presupposes the existence of moral individuals who can make such judgments. However, the very existence of moral revenge implies disagreement among individuals about what is right or wrong. This disagreement necessitates that individuals form their own moral perspectives based on their subjective experiences and values.

Consider the act of punishment. Punishment often involves the use of force or authority to correct behavior, but the legitimacy of such punishment is not inherent in the authority figure’s words or actions. It is validated by the consensus of onlookers. If a powerful figure imposes a punishment that the majority of onlookers disagree with, it may be seen as an abuse of power rather than a legitimate form of punishment.

Subjective Perspective in Moral Determination

The examples of moral revenge and punishment illustrate that the determination of what is moral or immoral ultimately lies with the individual. While many individuals may agree on what is morally right or wrong, there is no single, objective standard that applies to everyone. Instead, individual moral perspectives are shaped by personal experiences, cultural values, and social interactions.

The empirical observation of widespread agreement on moral issues suggests that consensus is a crucial factor in defining what is considered moral or immoral. Logically, this consensus is required to validate the idea of moral revenge or punishment. However, the underlying process of determining one's own moral perspective is more complex and individualized.

Conclusion

Morality is a multifaceted concept that involves both objective and subjective perspectives. While an objective moral framework exists according to many religious beliefs, individual subjective perspectives are equally important in shaping and interpreting morality. The challenge lies in reconciling these perspectives and finding common ground to foster ethical behavior and social harmony.