Objective Morality?

https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/2026/07/objective-morality.html

An examination of the concept.

Image - Frans de Waal and friend - by ChatGPT

- We shall come to de Waal and his friend in due course. But firstly, what is actually meant by objective morality? Oxford Languages defines "objective" as, "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." And "morality" as, "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." "Objective morality" is described as "the idea that right and wrong exist factually without opinion. The most common argument for objective morality is that religion determines morality." From here on, I abbreviate the term "objective morality" to OM. Immediately, we have some difficulties. a) The assertion that religion determines morality, and b) what actual religion it is that determines morality, are influenced by a person's beliefs. People may say that their beliefs are equivalent to facts, but others of different, equally fervently held beliefs will disagree. We can hardly equate belief and fact. It may be an objective fact that someone holds a given belief, but the belief itself is not necessarily factual. The same applies to the moral pronouncements themselves. It is an objective fact that someone has made a given pronouncement, but that is not to say that what that pronouncement consists of is objectively factual.

Let us take the determination, "Thou shalt not kill", or, as many defenders of scripturally determined OM will say, "Thou shalt not murder", making a distinction between the justifiable, legal causing of death and the illegal causing of it. People who claim that murder is an objectively factual category will disagree on what it means in practice and in detail when we look at the messy business that is life. -

• 1) Self defence. What level of threat and what degree of force are justifiable in cases of self defence? People have been prosecuted for the excessive use of force, and for entrapment of others into situations where they can claim it was self defence to kill.
• 2) The defence of others. The same grey areas apply here as apply to self defence.
• 3) The death penalty. OM advocates will disagree strongly over this.
• 4) Combat in war. Some OM believers will say that even killing your mortal enemy is murder. And who is your enemy? Killing the "enemy" easily spills over into atrocity and even genocide.
• 5) Collateral damage (a despicable euphemism). Is it justifiable at all? What degree of care is appropriate to minimise it? How do you judge the balance of care against risk to self and comrades? More grey areas.
• 6) Abortion. There are many scenarios in which OM believers will strongly disagree.
• 7) Causing death by reckless endangerment, pushing dangerous drugs or advocating risky behaviour such as unprotected promiscuous sex or vaccine refusal.-

- Even if OM exists in principle, among a group of OM advocates who disagree with one another, only one at the most might be right, and there is no way of telling who that might be. Drawbacks of OM. To believe in OM diminishes one's personal moral sensibilities and the ability to make nuanced moral decisions. Indeed, being brought up with the idea that there are only clear-cut absolute moral facts seems likely to stunt personal moral development, inhibiting the development of moral agency. The ability to deliberate over moral decisions and take responsibility for them in this messy, complicated world, I have been talking about OM believers in the present, disagreeing with one another. Looking at the question historically, huge changes in moral opinions have occurred even among the OM advocates. Changes in our attitudes involving slavery, the commercial exploitation of children, emancipation and the rights of women and of minorities of all descriptions. Animal rights.There is a word we English speakers have taken from the German - the moral zeitgeist. The concept recognises that the moral climate of society evolves. So coming to evolution, although everyone agrees that it is descriptive and not prescriptive, it does describe the reasons why we, as interdependent social creatures have developed moral sentiments - the feelings of sympathy and empathy, the sense of duty, the sense of shame, and why we are sensitive to and censorious of transgression. It is these sentiments, it is argued, that are the basis of moral systems and both religious and rationalist justifications of morality are built on top of them. As an example, Franz de Waal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal) was a world-recognised authority on animal behaviour, particularly that of chimpanzees. Do not be put off by the title of "The Bonobo and the Atheist" (https://www.amazon.com/Bonobo-Atheist-Search-Humanism-Primates/dp/0393347796). Theists will also agree with his analysis of chimp behaviour. Here is a part of the Amazon blurb on his book. "For many years, de Waal has observed chimpanzees soothe distressed neighbors and bonobos share their food. Now he delivers fascinating fresh evidence for the seeds of ethical behavior in primate societies that further cements the case for the biological origins of human fairness. Interweaving vivid tales from the animal kingdom with thoughtful philosophical analysis, de Waal seeks a bottom-up explanation of morality that emphasizes our connection with animals. In doing so, de Waal explores for the first time the implications of his work for our understanding of modern religion. Whatever the role of religious moral imperatives, he sees it as a “Johnny-come-lately” role that emerged only as an addition to our natural instincts for cooperation and empathy." People will say, "Ah, but chimps can be vicious murderers as well." Yes indeed, and this is a vital point - we can be too. We badly need to understand ourselves better, and recognising our evolutionary past and the way it has shaped us is a vital necessity. See "Why is evolutionary science vitally important? - A personal view" (https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/why-evolutionary-science-is-vitally.html).

Any rigid specified moral code, whether religiously or otherwise ideologically inspired, is always going to be inadequate to address the complex and often quandrous moral questions and decisions that we are faced with.