Social Consciousness As The Basis For Objective MoralityAn issue I have come across in various discussion on morality is whether or not morality can be considered objective or subjective. The purpose of this thread is to try and explore the various definitions of things like objectivity, subjectivity, and morality and then create a theoretical model on which to build an argument whereby morality can be considered to be objective. One of the biggest problems I have with my own argument is whether or not what I talk about in the second half of this essay can be considered to encompass morality as a whole, or if it should instead be considered something related but different in the matter of its objectivity. I haven't yet decided on the matter, so I will default by saying that it must be considered as at least part of morality.
So let's begin with the various definitions that will apply to my argument:
sub•jec•tive [suhb-jek-tiv] –adjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
Basically, for a concept to be subjective the source of the evaluation and all information used must come from the mind of the person who is viewing the object (object in the instance of ideas can include concepts). Take the example of the concept of beauty: when one is examining the object in question in order to say whether it is beautiful or not, they are picking out physical appearances or traits that they have already assigned as 'beautiful'. They may find a certain colour, or shape, or texture, or whatever as visually appealing but the attachment of 'appealing' to these traits is not inherent to the object itself, but rather is an evaluation that comes from the subject.
Now on to objective:
ob•jec•tive [uhb-jek-tiv] –adjective
1. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
2. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
3. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
4. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Obviously if subjective means that the thing in question comes from the mind of the subject and not the object, than objective would mean the opposite. For something to be objective, it must pertain solely to facts and information inherent to the object and nothing more. One can look at 'objects' factually by merely identifying what the height, weight, or colour of the object is. What becomes subjective is when the person goes beyond identification, and starts attaching evaluations to these traits which, as I already said and by now must be sounding like a broken record, comes from the mind of the subject and not from the object.
So where does morality fit into this mix?
A major issue is that morality is one of those incredibly ambiguous terms that has been used so often and so differently that defining what it is in relevance to subjectiveness or objectiveness is no mean feat, and I admit that I could easily fail to do an adequate job of it.
mo•ral•i•ty [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] –noun, plural -ties for 4–6.
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance
So to moral means virtue, and virtue means moral according to my source. There needs to be, I think, either a separation of these two words in their meanings or a creation of a new word to fit a concept that I believe to be fundamentally different than how these words are defined.
The main issue is that the meanings of these words makes them obviously subjective, because the assigning of certain behaviors with the stigma of 'virtuous' or 'moral' in this context comes from, you guessed it, the subject and not the object - that being the behaviour in question. So how does
But if that is what it means to be moral, then what of the three age old enemies of human beings murder, rape, and theft? These three concepts have been universally condemned by human kind throughout known human history and most likely as far as human kind and these behaviors have existed. But what does the definitions of subjective and objective have to say about these? Well, by definition these concepts/actions carry with it an immediate negative, so it could be argued that 'immorality' is inherent to the objects in question, those being murder, rape, and theft. However, the issue arises that the people who defined these concepts is the subject, and so it could be argued that these concepts are still subjectively evaluated. Another catch is that, throughout this history, interpretations of what constitutes murder, rape, and theft have greatly varied. However, this does not change the undeniable fact that, where murder, rape, or theft has been identified the attachment of the 'immoral', 'bad', and 'evil' has been right there. At the same time, as I will argue later on, this can be explained by the evolution of human society.
Even the people who commit these crimes know that such actions are bad, but they do them anyways because they wanted to, because they chose to. Free will necessitates that people will choose and act how they want to even if they think the choice/action is bad, immoral, or whatever. I mean, there has never been a case of a person justifying their act of rape, murder, or theft by saying: "its not a bad thing, I was doing a good thing by committing rape/murder/theft". What they will do is try and say that what they did was not rape, murder, or theft. The sole exception to this is, of course, sociopaths. These people have a mental disorder that renders them unable to feel any moral responsibility, conscience, or whatever. But it is a most curious thing, that the term used to describe these people contains the prefix of socio. This brings me to what I see as the clinching factor in this debate: that of human social consciousness.
Human beings are not the only species to have a form of social organization, and though it could be argued whether other animals have the mental capacity to understand the concepts of right and wrong I would be willing to wager quite a sum of money that those animals which might in fact understand it are animals who also have a form of social organization. So what is the fundamental foundation for morality? To me, the answer is social consciousness. What is the purpose of human beings and other animals forming such societies? Above all else it is survival. Working together in mutual help and protection increases the chances of survival as opposed to working solely on one's own. I would go so far as to argue that being able to comprehend the advantage of forming a society is the mental basis for being able to grasp the idea of a moral responsibility.
So the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong', 'good' and 'bad', and 'moral' and 'immoral' all arise from the issue of creating rules within a society to prevent some people from harming the basis of society itself - that being the mutual protection of every person within the society. Crimes against the society are seen as worse as crimes against individuals. Murder, rape, and theft... these three crimes are seen as the worst sorts of crime within a society, and are only seen as crimes within a society. The reason is that when you murder, rape, or steal from someone within the society you are perpetrating a serious attack against the welfare of the society. In the laws of nature theft is commonplace, and people who gathered into a society because they wanted to be able to protect their possessions and the fruits of their labors. So to allow theft is to immediately render the idea of a society instantly useless. Similarly, indiscriminate killing is also something that is part of the laws of nature, and just like theft people who want to be part of a society want to be able to protect themselves better from being killed. So as they are formed into these social groups, killing a member of the society becomes arguably the most serious crime within the fundamental laws of a society because like theft it undermines the basis of a society, that being mutual protection. Rape and other forms of assault are seen as lesser but still serious crimes within a society, because it disrupts the peace and harmony of those living in the social group and would again undermine the ideal of mutual protection.
So if morality is an issue inherent in society, and is an issue of social consciousness or social survival, than try and look at things like murder, rape, and theft objectively within the relevance of a society: Are murder, rape and theft inherently bad to a human society? Yes they are. That is a fact inherent to the object itself and not the subject (though it is universally considered bad by the subject as well). The laws of nature know no virtue, or morality, or right or wrong. These are concepts that are solely connected to the foundational structure of a society.
To summarize: I have examined the definitions of subjective, objective, morality and virtue in an effort to discover if there is such a thing as an objective morality. In doing so, I tried to address the seemingly universally condemned concepts of murder, rape, and theft. This lead me to the issue of sociopaths, and this in turn lead me to the idea that morality - and indeed all ideas of right and wrong - comes from the idea inherent to the foundational structure of society, that of mutual protection. When applying the definitions of objective and subjective to murder, rape, and theft within the conceptual context of a society I discovered that the stigma of 'bad' is something inherent to the object of these concepts rather than the subject. Thus, my conclusion is that there is such a thing as objective morality. Either that, or a new term needs to be created regarding the objective right/wrong of these concepts.
Just my view.
Yours?
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=19399.0
Topic: Social Consciousness and Morality (Read 1036 times)