The Problems With an Objective Morality

First let me define what morality is, I will use a simple definition for the purpose of this post. What is the right and what is wrong.

I have multiple problems with the idea of objective morality. To a certain extent an individual could argue that they are objective, no one would say that killing is acceptable no one believes that theft is acceptable but this is not because of moral reasons but evolutionary ones. How long would a species or society survive if they would kill each other? If things were like that we as a species would have slaughtered each other to the point of extinction. So it is in the best interest of the species and our society that we not kill each other. Let's look at a different situation because quite frankly the idea of objective morality works with the Wizard of Oz type of good and evil but fails in real world application because evil doesn't always put on green makeup and a pointy hat for you. Evil could be something as subtle as intentful inaction and good can be something as simple as being polite to others.

Now let's take the idea of taking another human life obviously our species would not survive if we took this lightly so we as a species we would have gone extinct ages ago. However some individuals can find the taking of human life acceptable in certain situations. Some individuals find the use of lethal force acceptable when they need to defend themselves or their families. Some find killing for a cause acceptable. If morality were something completely objective we would all come to the same conclusions to all moral dilemmas.

Now for my main point against objective morals. If a mother takes a knife and uses it to kill a potential threat to her children would that be an immoral act? If killing is wrong it should be consistently wrong no matter the circumstances. Would you have the nerve to give that mother a lecture on morality? Would you have the nerve to tell her she acted in an improper manor?

Two individuals in the Nazi Germany are confronted with a decision, they could speak out against the genocide going on around them or they could remain silent.  Each individual has to decide what is right given each situation they come to different conclusion as to the proper action or inaction. Person A decides to remain silent because his actions would bring harm to his family. Protecting your family would I hope be a moral thing in your mind. Person B decides to speak out because this injustice cannot go unchallenged but he and his family are killed for this dissent. Speaking out against genocide is to you I hope a moral action.

If morality is something objective than one of these individuals acted improperly. So my challenge to those who believe in an objective moral truth: Tell me which individual acted correctly and justify your answer.

I have heard many people say, "Just because we do not know the objectively moral thing to do does not mean it doesn't exist." I would agree but you just rendered morality unknowable therefore you would merely be left speculating on what the proper morality might be. This renders objective morality meaningless because if it is unknown we might as well be bloviating on what colour underwear Santa's elves are wearing. With an unknowable objective morality any statement about it would be without basis and without merit.

The idea of morals come from people and people vary greatly in many aspects. To try and remove people from a purely human idea is frankly absurd. Some cultures/individuals value things differently but to claim they are wrong to come to a different conclusion in the matter of morality is to claim knowledge you do not have.

If there were an objective moral law and the moral law were consistent the taking of human life would always be wrong no matter the circumstances. I use this example because often time Christians are arguing for an objective moral law but they constantly contradict themselves in this regard and the sad part is they do not even know it. The Christian's moral code is based solely on the judgement values of a single deity, a deity that has trouble abiding by his own rules. How can a deity so inconsistent be the foundation of an objective morality? He tells us we should not kill but then he orders genocide to be carried out in his name, he orders individuals to be stoned for breaking the most trivial of his arbitrary rules. I never seen a individual for killing yet against killing at the same time. That is another thing is your moral code were objectively true it would not break the logical law of noncontradiction which it clearly does.

This would apply to more than just the Christian God. This would apply to any religion that has a deity dictate their moral laws. You are basing all of your moral code on the judgement values of a single deity. Just because they aren't your own subjective take on the right thing to do in a situation doesn't mean that the subjective nature changes.