The Value of Moral Objectivism: Could 4 + 4 Ever Equal 37?

Sir Winston Churchill
Former U.K. Prime Minister
In Office from October 26, 1951 - April 7, 1955

Though my mind is often clouded with a whirlwind of thoughts, recollections, and wandering epiphanies, one concept never fails to adopt a permanent home in my logically scattered collection of cerebral ideas and beliefs. This particular notion is one that I have pondered tirelessly, unknowingly and consciously, yet I have never found redemption in my quest for this specific truth. This truth, however, is one that has plagued philosophers for centuries over, so I must make it known that I am not excavating untouched metaphysical ground through this conventionally contemplated hypothesis. Nevertheless, I am compelled to purport this conviction to the forefront, for an internal need to further reflect on the substantiality in its controversy; to separate, distinguish, and identify the actualities between philosophical objectivism and, its counterpart, philosophical subjectivism. 

Admittedly, I have written philosophical papers previously regarding said discussion, but I’ve never tired of deliberating its evident value. So, in this specific examination, I will argue as I always do, in support of morally objective thought. Precisely, the intention of this exposition is to succinctly juxtapose the features of both moral subjectivism and objectivism, ultimately endeavoring to reveal the moral purity of objective ideas and expose the salient immoral nature of subjective ones.

The tenets of moral objectivism vary greatly from those of moral subjectivism, mainly within their perspectives on ethics and notions of good versus evil. Specifically, moral objectivism holds that there is one definite, universal code of ethics; humans, or any identity for that matter, merely discover this set of morals, despite the influence of conditional features of life, like religion, culture, or even family. Moral subjectivism, however, claims that ethics directly correlate with the beliefs and attitudes of the individual, so one person’s ethical code is morally acceptable simply in virtue of that individual’s belief. The same concept would apply to another individual, though both ethical codes may contrast greatly. Subjective thought denies the notion that there is one, universal system of ethics, accepting moral codes relative to an individual, society, or culture. There is no wrong in this particular school of thought, everyone’s ethics are acceptable if it falls within their personal core set of beliefs.

The central concerns I have with moral subjectivism do not even begin to shed light on its faulty foundation. This philosophical concept is the root of all evil and corruption in the world, unintentionally encouraging inhumanity, atrocity, and barbarism. The Taliban, for example, according to any subjectivist, is a morally acceptable group simply because their “ethics” are relative to them. What they believe goes, so it is ethically okay to stone, rape, and kill innocent women, even if our culture, for that matter, believes differently. Genocide becomes permissible, murder is tolerated, and the  humiliating debasement of innocent women, men, and children is justified. Philosophers and students alike still endorse ethical subjectivism (trust me, I have friends who identify themselves as subjectivists), which I find positively disturbing. The support of moral subjectivism is the support of ignorance, societal regression, and injustice.

Objectivism, however, acknowledges that there is one universal moral set of laws, which people discover through rational, logical, and reasonable processes. Mathematics, for instance, is just one manifestation of objectivism, proving its existence and infallible composition.   The equation of 1 + 1 = 2 is a universal, definite, objective statement; subjectivists could claim that 1 + 1 = 3, maybe even 7, or even 9 million, and these would all be correct answers. 

The crucial importance of dissolving moral subjectivism within our culture, attitudes, and behaviors is necessary to the sustenance of humanity as a whole. Subjective thought promotes futility in the efforts of outstanding individuals who have revitalized the essence of humankind, nurtured the progress of personal equality, and preserved the fundamental rights of every living being. With subjectivism, Winston Churchill’s actions against Nazi Germany becomes a joke, Dan T. Cathy, the president of Chick-Fil-A is ethically allowed to run a homophobic corporation, and Muammer al-Gaddafi’s dictatorship was perfectly fair. 

A true objectivist is aware that one cannot fully know this metaphysical, universal code of ethics that is the core of objectivist thought, but is certain of its existence. Through logic and reason, we are able to uncover more behind the definition of morality, and follow what is objectively right in comparison to what is objectively wrong. Adopting an objectivist mindset promotes the welfare of mankind, a judgement anyone would logically, intelligently, and reasonably ascertain.

A Final Note: I deeply encourage my readers to offer their opinions on this specific discussion, even if it contradicts or opposes any of my ideas regarding these matters. So, are you morally objectivist or morally subjectivist?