Morality, the system of principles distinguishing right from wrong, is viewed through multiple philosophical lenses. Some argue that morality is objective, meaning that moral truths exist independently of human opinion. Others, like myself, believe that morality is subjective, shaped by individual perspectives and cultural contexts.
I lean strongly toward subjective morality and find it difficult to accept that any moral judgments can be objectively true or false outside of the personalized human experience. But reading the thought of both camps has provided me many thought seeds.
Objective Morality: Philosophers’ Views
- Immanuel Kant –
Kant’s philosophy is grounded in his concept of the categorical imperative, which posits that we should act according to maxims that can be willed as universal laws. For Kant, moral laws are objective and based on rationality, rather than personal or cultural inclinations. He believed that certain actions (such as lying) are always morally wrong, regardless of the circumstances, because they cannot be universalized without contradiction.
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” - Plato –
In his Theory of Forms, Plato suggested that moral truths exist in a higher, unchanging reality. According to Plato, the Form of the Good is an objective truth that transcends human experience and is accessible through reason. This objective moral framework allows individuals to align their lives with universal principles.
“Knowledge of the Good is necessary to live a virtuous life.” - Thomas Aquinas –
Aquinas argued that morality is rooted in natural law, a set of principles derived from human nature and discoverable through reason. He believed that moral laws reflect the will of God and are therefore objective, guiding human beings toward the good and away from evil.
“Good is to be done and pursued, and evil avoided.”
Subjective Morality: Philosophers’ Views
- David Hume –
Hume argued that morality is based on human emotions, rather than objective truths. He believed that moral judgments arise from feelings of approval or disapproval, and that these judgments are subjective, contingent on personal and cultural perspectives.
“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” - Friedrich Nietzsche –
Nietzsche rejected the idea of objective morality, viewing it as a construct created by society to suppress individuality. For him, moral values are human inventions, and people should create their own moral frameworks based on their unique experiences.
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” - Jean-Paul Sartre –
Sartre, an existentialist, believed that human beings are radically free and must define their own moral values. There are no objective moral truths to guide us; rather, morality is subjective and shaped by the individual’s choices.
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”
Comparing and Contrasting Objective vs. Subjective Morality
The stark line between objective and subjective morality lies in whether moral truths exist independently of human thought or are constructed by individuals and societies. Objective morality holds that moral rules are universal, while subjective morality posits that they vary based on context.
- Universality vs. Contextuality:
Objective morality claims that actions like lying or murder are always wrong, regardless of the situation. Subjective morality, on the other hand, sees moral judgments as dependent on context, emotions, and cultural norms. - Moral Facts vs. Moral Perspectives:
Advocates of objective morality believe in discoverable moral facts, while proponents of subjective morality see these as personal or cultural constructs.
For example, take the act of lying. From an objective standpoint (Kant’s view), lying is always wrong because it cannot be universalized. From a subjective standpoint (Hume’s view), whether lying is wrong depends on the emotional and cultural context, such as whether the lie is told to protect someone from harm.
My View: Subjective Morality and the Role of Empathy
I believe that no one can truly judge an action as right or wrong except the person completing the action. Our instinct may be to “do good,” but I think this instinct is shaped by our internal landscape and is driven primarily by empathy. Human beings tend to act in ways that minimize harm to others, a concept that can branch into Utilitarianism, where actions are judged by their consequences in reducing overall suffering. And then there’s that Golden Rule that is in so many texts throughout history.
Do I think there are actions that could be universally considered wrong? From my own subjective perspective,maybe—there are certain actions, such as causing unnecessary harm, that feel intuitively wrong. However, from an objective standpoint, no, I don’t believe there are universal moral laws governing all actions. Each moral judgment is contextual and shaped by the individuals involved. The question that is pertinent here is “says who?”
The “Might Makes Right” Problem in Subjective Morality
One potential challenge with subjective morality is the issue of “might makes right”—the idea that those in power can impose their moral views on others. In a world of subjective morality, how do we prevent powerful individuals or groups from enforcing their subjective values as if they were objective truths?
The short answer is: we don’t. History shows that the powerful have often created the rules and passed them down to their followers. Religion and government frequently mandate moral principles, but this doesn’t make those principles objective. It merely reflects the will of those in power. Laws and societal norms, in my view, are more about social cohesion than morality. They are agreements that allow society to function, not declarations of objective moral truths.
What Do You Think?
Is your moral framework grounded solely in logic or solely in emotion? Or can it be an appropriate mix of the two?
The question I can’t seem to hurdle is: Is it realistic to assume that moral laws can be applied universally, given the complexity of human experience? It seems quite glaringly unrealistic. But times have changed considerably since the origin of this debate.