On morality [Part 1]

Objectivism vs. subjectivism

There can be no honest and meaningful morality, if its driver is the expectation of a hedonistic heaven, or the avoidance of a sadistic hell. No authentic morality can exist, if it must be externally rewarded, or its absence be punished by an exterior force.

The only genuine reward for morality can be internally sourced. Its only punishment, not knowing who you are. Otherwise, morality is nothing but a hypocritical performance, reluctantly staged to appease cruel gods and tempting demons.

Genuine morality cannot be coerced through appeals to perceived authority, nor divine carrots and sticks.

---

This is the first part of a series on morality. I attempt to clarify the discussion, as we all seem to maintain strong opinions about what is moral and what is not; moralizing and pontificating -and enforcing even- our personal sense of what is “objectively” right, without first attributing meaning to and agreeing on terms.

Let’s explore moral subjectivism and moral objectivism.

Moral subjectivism

Those of the subjective persuasion insist that morality is subjective and fluid; its adherence depending on circumstance. For moral subjectivists, some arbitrary framework of morality is good to have, as long as it doesn’t interfere with what they want in the here and now. They reduce morality to mere shortsighted utilitarianism; the dangerous notion that any evil (admittedly) is permissible, as long as the expected and supposed “good” is greater. And this alleged “greater good” conveniently tends to serve only those who invoke it. Go figure…

Another variation of utilitarianism is the lesser evil; both the “greater good” and the “lesser evil” are variations of utilitarianism, and are in fact the greatest of evils. Why? Because they have been deviously used as “justifications” for the most monstrous atrocities in history. They are still used this way.

Not only that, but this lesser-evil good-cop-bad-cop routine is what initiates, permits, exacerbates, and perpetuates evil in the first place.

Utilitarian moral subjectivism basically means that there is no morality, no deontology to which to subscribe consistently. For moral subjectivists, morality takes the back seat when compared to immediate utility for those with the power to impose their will on others.

For subjectivists, therefore, there can be no moral dilemma; if they are presented with a choice that maximizes their perceived utility, then they choose that options, even if it conflicts with their professed moral framework.

Moral subjectivists are subjective in the way they arbitrarily define their morality, and their are also subjective in how faithful they remain to their subjective ethos, making up convenient exceptions as they go. It’s subjectivism upon subjectivism.

Moral subjectivism is nothing but utilitarianism. Thus, morality serves no purpose other than virtue-signaling and piety-boasting. This is why moral subjectivists tend to be collectivist socialists and utilitarian libertines; hollow people with no identity or purpose other than deliberately being obnoxious as a desperate plea for attention and pity.

The irony of moral subjectivism is that it completely ignores first causes and first principles. It is willing to break its own morality to impose its own morality, which defeats the purpose. And this unnecessary urge to initiate the enforcement of morality is usually the only source of immorality. Tragic irony or tragic comedy?

Moral objectivism

On the other hand, moral objectivists believe that there is such a thing as objective morality for all, and that these moral guidelines must be universally applied, even if that means sacrificing utility in the here and now. For them, morality is not a matter of opinion; there is only one moral framework. Everything within it is moral; everything outside it is immoral. There are no exceptions, regardless of circumstance.

Failing to consistently adhere to your moral framework when the chips are down means you were never moral to begin with - no extenuating circumstances, no mitigating factors.

I agree with moral objectivism in the sense that, for a moral guideline to be meaningful, you must adhere to it objectively, consistently, and deontologically; even if it means losing utility. There can be no meaningful morality without sacrifice. Your commitment to your morality is worthless when it buckles under pressure; if you forsake your ethos by appealing to convenient excuses. For example, if someone threatens to murder you unless you murder another, then what do you do? If you would murder, then you only subjectively adhere to your objective moral principle of not murdering. This makes you immoral and a hypocrite; you’ve always been immoral.

However, I cannot agree with the claim that objective moral principles and frameworks exist and apply to all. Here’s why:

Morality: objectively subjective

Moral objectivists tend to claim they get objective morality from their personal idea of a god, yet they can’t agree on how to interpret their own religious texts with regard to what is actually moral. They make a case for objective morality (conveniently enough THEIR morality), yet they base the entirety of their morality on generic common-sense ancient texts that are ambiguous and not even close to covering all the moral questions of an advanced society. They claim they get their morality from a god, when even their own religious interpretation of god is further divided into different denominations; each with conflicting moral dictates that are arbitrarily and subjectively interpreted. How is this subjective interpretation of “divinely sourced” morality not the same as subjective morality?

Unless they believe that THEIR personal brand of morality is objective, which again is the definition of moral subjectivity.

---

Morality is a concept. Morality cannot exist outside of human consciousness and society. Before humans existed (even in the biblical universe), morality did not exist. I know I’ll get a lot of hate for what I’m about to say (quite immoral, I must say). But, morality is something we made up; and as much as I dislike socialist terminology, morality is a social construct, like it or not.

Before you broad-stroke judge, condemn, and dismiss me as a woke socialist caricature of depravity and debauchery, hear me out…

Examples of a concept are a forest, a beard, or an ocean: they aren’t objective things with objective boundaries. Concepts aren’t independent of arbitrary definitions. You can’t objectively determine where a beard begins and where it ends, but you still have a generic subjective idea of what it is. You could recognize a beard if you saw one, but then again it is still a concept that we made up. A hair in the beard, on the other hand, is an object - objectively. It exists whether we’re conscious of it or not. A beard, as in the collection of hair on an adult male’s cheeks and jaw (and arguably some neck), does not exist objectively in nature. Want proof of that? Image-search “Che Guevara,” and then tell me if that lunatic had a beard, a stubble, or a mustache, and where it begins and where it ends.

Concepts are subjective, I’m sorry to say, even though I am biased towards the opposite. I wish morality were objective. Then we’d have an easy time convincing everyone of it, and we’d spare ourselves the pain of conflict, aggression, war, atrocity, crime, and misery. But the fact that it’s so hard to get all people to agree on what objective morality for all is should serve as a hint: If morality were objective, it would have been obvious for all, save a few anti-social outliers. Yet there are as many moral frameworks as there are humans. Which one of those is objective? Yours? How convenient!

---

Objective morality cannot come from religion. Is your morality so unimportant that you base it on a subjective understanding of a god, and poorly explained moral principles that are supposed to be clearly defined if they are to be objective? How reckless and dangerous is an unclear law?

Besides, you don’t get your morality directly from god, unless you hear voices in your head. Instead, you play the moral telephone game: god tells his prophets, his prophets tell their disciples, their disciples tell their saints, the saints tell the missionaries, the missionaries tell the heads of a regional church, and on and on. Each generation of self-appointed religious “scholars” whispers in the ear of the next, word of mouth, a copy of a copy of a copy scroll. And this is supposed to be your objective morality?

If your morality were objective, then why is it never clear in its definition, instruction, and consequence? For example, if your moral framework considers homosexuality immoral, then why isn’t it clearer in its definition? Is homosexuality only immoral in males? And if it is immoral, how is it to be treated? With shaming? With ostracism? With ceremonial execution via public stoning? Simply saying that “this and that offends god” doesn’t quite cut it for an advanced society beyond desert-dwelling goat herders. And who says humans are allowed to punish humans in the name of god? People’s nonsense offends me daily, making me ashamed to be human... that doesn’t mean I am within the boundaries of morality if I choose to coercively silence them.

---

Then we have secular attempts at defining objective morality, like the non-aggression principle to which I personally subscribe. I consider this to be the base of my moral framework, not because I believe it to be an “objective” morality for all; even though, if there were such a thing as objective base morality, it would be the non-aggression principle. Why? Because logic: no other moral principle can be honest or meaningful if it is coerced or reluctantly performed to avoid sadistic hellish punishment, or to receive hedonistic rewards in an imagined afterlife. I base my morality on the NAP because it makes great relationships, it is efficient in your personal and professional life, and it saved me a lot of pain from ridiculous entitlements to things I can’t have and aren’t owed to me in the first place. And then, the added bonus of freely choosing to uphold this moral (instead of being coerced by a cruel sadistic deity) is that I derive my identity from it, which grants me existential purpose and meaning.

One may say that this logic makes the NAP objective. That’s a good point since logic is objective. But morality isn’t; it’s a subjective concept.

Moralists and pontificators froth at the mouth whenever I bring up that morality cannot be objective. They conveniently broad-stroke me as a leftist libertine and hedonistic nihilist who conveniently frees himself from morality so that he can engage in carnal hedonism guilt-free. But this is false because I choose to be consistently moral according to the moral framework I freely choose, DESPITE not attributing to it the epithet “objective.” I choose to morally self-govern without being coerced or bribed by external forces, such as a god or a government (same thing). If anything, the true hedonists are those who expect their hypocritical performance of morality to be rewarded in a carnally pleasurable afterlife; the true nihilists are those who value their morality so little, that they believe it’s just an act they put on just to avoid sadistic eternal punishment. The actual pessimists are those who believe that morality cannot exist without commandment by a higher force. This is how little they respect themselves; their self-image is that of a small child. Really? And I’m supposed to get lessons in morality from such people?

Moral objectivism and moral subjectivism is yet another false dichotomy.

The right question

I can argue all day about utilitarianism vs. deontology, the arbitrarily defined greater good versus ethos-first principle, and trolley problems and the like. But the question remains: is there such a thing as objective morality?

If there is, it escapes us, because none of us seems to agree on it.

But the answer to this question comes with another question: must there be objective morality? Is our belief in our morality so fragile that we need the validating label of “objective” before committing to ethos? In other words, do we value our moral principles so little that we need the credibility of a higher power to verify them for us?

From where morality comes

I understand why we want there to be objective morality: fear.

We are terrified that, if others don’t consider evil what we consider to be evil, then we will have to suffer evil. If, for example, you believe that spanking your children is moral (it isn’t), then you would want spanking to be objective morality. First, to free yourself from the guilt of your sadism, but mostly to promote this evil notion to others so that you don’t have to live in a world of people without childhood trauma. Oh, woe, what a nightmare would that be!

Of course, we presume that our morality is the correct morality, and therefore, it would be super-convenient if said morality were objective for all throughout all space-time.

Motivations

The reason we create morality - since before any religion was even conceptualised - comes from three incentives:

1. A fear of a god (rewards and punishments)

2. Self-identity

3. Incentive: social pressure, fear of social consequences, rewards for apparent piety

These are a topic for another article…

---

But why do we seek an objective morality more than a personal moral framework for ourselves only?

You’d feel safer if your moral framework were shared by everyone. Then, everyone would be predictable, and therefore, safer to be around. But, how do you get people to share your moral principles, without coercion and bribes that would invalidate those principles?

The first thing to do is check your narcissistic entitlement: nobody owes you anything. You are not owed a perfect world where everyone shares your values. Just because you think your morality is “objective” does not mean you are owed the same moral adherence by others. And in return, you are not expected to conform to others’ perception of “objective” morality.

I am a voluntaryist, which means I’m unfortunately part of the smallest minority: people who believe that any coercion - especially from a centralised monopoly of governmental violence - is immoral. Yet, I understand that the majority (for whatever reason) believes we supposedly “need” a government (we don’t need government). Tough.

I am humble enough to understand that people don’t share my values, and they wouldn’t feel safe with the same moral framework as mine. It is what it is, and I don’t feel entitled to society bending to my will.

This is not to suggest that I am somehow morally superior; it is to conclude that, the less you feel entitled to, the more likely you are to put effort into earning it. Nobody works for whatever they presume is already theirs (or should be theirs by default). If you accept that you are not owed it, you’re more likely to work to make yourself worthy of it and thus earn it. And yes: the toxic motivators with their toxic positivity of entitlement - that you somehow “deserve” it all by default - are deliberately trying to crush and demotivate you.

---

In a nutshell, that’s what the quest for objective morality boils down to: safety. We want others to adhere to the same morality because we are afraid of anything outside our own.

How do we mitigate this fear?

So, what are you doing about it?

Instead of arguing that your morality is objective, and should therefore be enforced on others through contrived social engineering, and psychological or physical violence, you could be doing something more constructive: showing to others how your morality is serving you, how it grants meaning to your existence, and how it improves your life. Convince and incentivize people; there is nothing more you can do.

Besides, an enforced morality ceases to be moral because anyone who needs to be forced to be moral will not be moral: he’ll just reluctantly put on a show to avoid punishment, or to reap rewards. Then he’ll become recalcitrant and resentful of you for forcing said morality onto him, and he’ll even resent the morality too. If he had one chance of willingly converting to your moral framework, you’ve lost him completely through your coercion. This is how coercion doesn’t solve anything, and in many cases, makes things even worse.

The quest for objective morality is immoral in itself. Objectively. Not really. Do whatever you want, just don’t hurt anyone. And for those frothing at the mouth over this simple axiom, this segways perfectly to my upcoming article on moralism…

---

Thank you for reading. I appreciate your time. All my work here is free.

Like, comment, share, or subscribe for free… or not. It’s all the same.

---