Examples Of Objective Morality

Morality can best be defined as, “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.” “In philosophy we have a problem knowing the origin of right and wrong, there are various theories and ideas but we do not seem to have a definite answer to this question.” (Jamee Ford). When trying to decipher whether morality is objective or subjective, the logical answer would be that morality is objective. Objective morality is structured, and can be understood; therefore, it is rational. On the other hand, subjective morality is evoked from one’s personal feelings and emotions, and belongs to the contemplating subject; rather than the object of thought. Subjective morality is irrational, because not everyone in society

has the same insight in regards to each notion or controversial issue. Consequently, certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of what any society thinks about them. I will now justify that objective morality does exist with evidence and deductive reasoning.
Numerous amounts of people do not concur with the ideology that morality is objective, because they believe that without a religious framework, it is nothing more than mere human construct in the cognitive system. The argument is basically stating that the morality an individual or culture accepts is as insignificant as choosing which car model is best. Some individuals prefer a Honda Pilot, while others prefer a Toyota Highlander, but that does not mean that one’s preference is more correct than the other’s. In some situations, they tend to contend with one another, but in short, all individuals and societies hold disparate moral belief systems, just as with certain car models, no particular set of moral beliefs is more legitimate than any other. It seems that in regards to moral issues, a consensus is never reached. There are arguments in which there is no way to prove the “superiority” of a moral system with logic alone, so the only supposed way a moral system can be “correct,” is if religion is the tie breaker. That would mean that whichever value system is of the “correct” religion; otherwise, there would be no way to distinguish between each one.
In my perspective, this type of argument can be easily discredited.

The first point regards the lack of a general agreement regarding to morality. The second point involves the inability to prove superiority of the moral systems using logic alone. It is certain that throughout history, people have held differing views about morality, but they have also held different beliefs about the natural physical laws as well. Take for instance, the universal law of gravitation, because of Sir Isaac Newton, we know that any two given objects, despite their size and mass, exert gravitational force towards one another. Unfortunately, this was not always the case, since people always have their own theories. This does not in anyways mean that there is no objective law of gravity. The beliefs in gravity, are attempts by human beings to approximate reality. It is logical, because people can understand this scientific theory, and it is rational, because human beings can even prove this theory to be

true.
As we grow up we are taught the difference between what is considered right and what is considered wrong, which is based on what is socially acceptable.

I believe morality comes from us citizens, the law, our feelings and our religion can give a certain indication to how we set our values, but I believe it is an objective fact that what is said to be wrong is wrong, and what is said to be right is right. A minority of people think that morality comes from God, so they gain a lot of their moral understanding from the Holy Bible, and the Ten Commandments. The item at hand is that if we do not believe in God, where would we receive our insights on morality? Without God, would morality still exist? Take into consideration, those who are non religious, they are still able to hold the idea that murder is wrong. If God were to make murder acceptable, there would still be people who deemed it as unacceptable. Therefore, another reason given that morality is objective, rather than

subjective.
Moral objectivism does not leave room for opinions; it reasons that moral judgments are either true or false absolutely. Thomas Nagel poses questions that makes us truly ponder what objective morality is all about. Some examples of these questions are: what makes an action wrong? Why should anyone care? Why should I care? Nagel then explains three objections against religious justifications to answer this question. “First, there are an ample amount of people who don't believe in God yet make discernments between right and wrong. Next, what God deems is wrong still isn't what makes it wrong. Rather what is wrong is why God forbids it. And lastly, the fear of punishment or the hope of a reward or even his love does not seem to be the right motives for morality.” (Singer 156). Nagel is trying to say that morality should not be centralized around religion, a form of subjectivity, but around what is truly right and wrong, because even if we do not have a religion, we must know what is right, and what is wrong. Objective morality is the only plausible answer, because despite people’s viewpoints, they can discern what is right and wrong, and that is what matters.