Is Morality Objective?

There is no universal consensus regarding the notion of morality being objective or subjective. Objective morality means believing that the principles of right and wrong exist independently from the opinions of people or cultural customs.¹ However, humans do not share the same moral values because there is no moral consensus with regard to people’s values about euthanasia and how people treat non-human animals. The proponents of moral objectivity opine that morality is as objectively true as mathematics or science.² However, the main factor is the idea of harm because every living animal that has a nervous system experiences harm because it feels pain or fear. The opponents of moral objectivity contend that people’s personal experiences and their knowledge determine the basis of a particular belief.³ Therefore, a moral system is not universally true even when a group of people believe in it because this system is based on a practice of value that the group decided to follow. This essay studies the two sides of the debate regarding right and wrong universal facts by developing the argument that the basic values that all humans share provide a good basis for believing in a type of universal morality even though it is difficult to establish absolute moral rules.

There is a well-defined understanding of a universal concept of moral objectivity that regards morality as objectively true. This view is based on deontology, which considers harm as the determining factor in separating the actions that are moral from the ones that are not.⁴ Every living entity with a nervous system has the capacity to experience harm; some of the markers of harm include pain, frustration, and fear. The universe has a tendency of causing harm as a case such as the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs reveals. However, humans have the ability to regulate harm that is intentional and within the control of humans and harm that is not intentional like environmental damage that human industrial development causes.⁵ Accordingly, humans should endeavor to find ways of mitigating harm because it is bad by definition; all humans have a moral obligation not to harm other living organisms. This moral obligation exists objectively since harm exists in an objective way; the effects of doing harm on other people’s or animal’s lives are perceptible, and this means that harm exists. Morality is objective because it is possible to separate right behavior from wrong behavior; however, coming up with a clear definition of harm makes it difficult to define harm.

The challenge with defining harm is the disparate perspectives related to defining moral truth, and this forms the basis of moral relativism. Every member of the human species does not share similar moral values as topics like euthanasia and abortion remain relatively controversial.⁶ David Hume supports this idea by saying, “Reason is . . . the slave of the passions.”⁷ Moral codes may appear objective but the culture and age into which they develop define what society regards as right or wrong. For example, ancient Semitic cultures regarded child sacrifices to deities such as Moloch as morally upright. The Bible story of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22 serves as an example of an etiological myth that functions as a significant point where a ram substituted human sacrifice and set a new theological standard.⁸ This case demonstrates the complexity of moral truths; the lack of a well-developed definition of harm makes it difficult to separate right actions from wrong actions. Therefore, people may know that harm exists but fail to know the boundaries that separate what is right from wrong.

Nonetheless, a philosopher like Alasdair MacIntyre indicates that it is possible to achieve a level of moral objectivity. MacIntyre uses virtue ethics to suggest that objective morality can be realized within the confines of particular communities and the values they share.⁹ Ancient Athens had ethical traditions that created objective standards of virtue; MacIntyre indicates that a specific community can resolve to come up with a shared moral code that stipulates how to achieve what is best for the community. Such a code provides every member with a proper role in society and the tasks to undertake. In this regard, the society that selects protecting private property as a shared aim establishes that it is objectively wrong to steal something that belongs to another person. The same idea is applicable in Christian Trinitarian thought because God acts as the ultimate standard of what is right and wrong.¹⁰ Titus 1:2 reveals that God cannot lie because lying is against the nature of God. Therefore, lying is universally wrong because it is a moral standard that exists outside a believer.

In conclusion, morality can be objective in a situation where every human chooses to share a basis for trusting in a type of universal morality even when establishing absolute moral rules is difficult. Objective morality is about believing that the principles that govern right and wrong exist independently from the people’s opinions or cultural customs. A group of people can resolve to come up with a moral code that identifies what is good for the entire community. This group can be Christians or a community like ancient Athens that selects to align their actions with the code that the entire group sets. Nonetheless, one cannot overlook issues like the lack of existence of well-defined moral truths because of the different perceptions or beliefs that people hold. Nonetheless, people can overcome this issue by choosing to create a shared code of ethics and getting people to use it to make decisions that minimize harm.