There is a lot of confusion about what is meant by “moral relativism” and “moral objectivism/realism”
“Subjective” and “objective” tell you about the source of the truth maker; i.e. what makes something true. Is it the beliefs of the subject (the person’s mind) that make it true, or is it an object in the external world? My belief that homemade vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream is what makes it true that homemade vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream for me. In contrast, the curvature of space-time is what makes gravity true – not just for me, but for everyone. Gravity is true regardless of what I believe about it.
As it applies to morality, moral relativism claims that what makes a moral claim true is simply that a subject believes it to be true. It doesn’t have to correspond to anything in the external world. Like preferences in ice cream, such moral truths are relative to the individual. These truths do not apply to everyone. In contrast, moral objectivism (moral realism) claims that what makes a moral claim true is that it corresponds to some moral reality in the external world. Like gravity, moral truths exist independent of our beliefs about them and applies to all people equally. There is no “your truth” and “my truth,” but only “the truth.”
Thinking to Believe 
October 20, 2022 at 3:06 am
Ah, but how does one identify what is objective morality? For instance, is behavior that enhances well-being objectively moral? It is if you assume that well-being is a desirable state. But it isn’t if you assume that life has no intrinsic value. In reality ALL morality is relative UNLESS you have an assumption for comparison.
For instance, if we assume well-being is a desirable state and that harm and suffering are not desirable states, we can evaluate behaviors like kindness, respect, teaching, helping, etc. to be objectively moral relative to well-being. Conversely, we can evaluate behaviors like murder, slavery, torture, rape, theft, betrayal, child and animal abuse, etc. to be objectively immoral relative to well-being. Without those baseline assumptions, all morality is necessarily subjective.
And this is a good thing, because it allows morality to improve with time, experience, compassion and wisdom. For instance, 2000 years ago it was considered moral to keep and torture slaves, murder people of different religious beliefs or who were homosexuals, treat women as second-class citizens/property, etc. Even the God of the Bible committed and condoned so many of the behaviors we now understand as immoral atrocities, from slaughtering babies to selling little girls into sexual slavery to torturing people forever. If morality weren’t relative, it couldn’t improve, and today we would be committing the same atrocities as people back then committed and believed to be moral.
LikeLike
October 25, 2022 at 2:31 pm
You’re almost there, Jason, but your account again avoids specifically defining “good” or what a “moral truth” is. It is also missing a supplemental argument why anybody should care about certain objective facts against other objective facts.
LikeLike
October 26, 2022 at 10:36 pm
Derek, you are raising questions regarding moral epistemology. This post is about moral ontology. That said, I will address your comments.
It’s not true that “morality is relative” if you don’t have “an assumption for comparison.” Morality is only relative if morality is an invention of the human mind. If morality exists independently of human minds as a feature of reality, then it is objective – even if humans had no way of knowing what that moral truth was. Difficulties in moral epistemology have nothing to do with the question of moral ontology.
Your comments assume the viewpoint of moral relativism. Morality cannot improve over time if moral objectivism is true. All that can improve is how well our behaviors match that moral standard. But truth be told, morality cannot “improve” on moral relativism either because “improving” implies a standard that one is measured against. There is no such standard on moral relativism. While moral behaviors may change over time, it is meaningless to talk about it as a moral improvement. It’s just a moral change.
LikeLike
October 26, 2022 at 10:39 pm
Scalia, that’s a rather odd critique. I can’t be faulted for failing to do something I was not attempting to do. I was simply defining the meaning of words used in moral ontology. I was not attempting to engage in moral semantics by defining what “the good” is, nor attempting to persuade people to care about the debate. Those are worthy pursuits, but not the goal of this post.
LikeLike
October 27, 2022 at 8:40 am
“Morality is only relative if morality is an invention of the human mind. If morality exists independently of human minds as a feature of reality, then it is objective – even if humans had no way of knowing what that moral truth was.”
While I would agree that morality is an invention of the mind, I’m curious why you specify “human” mind. Morality is found in MANY species in some form or other (monkeys and rats, for instance, will refuse a treat if receiving that treat causes harm to another monkey or rat). So I would simply say that morality is an invention of minds to evaluate the desirability of behaviors in a community. But morality can’t help but be relative, since it is always situational. It’s always possible to conceive of a perspective where any given moral behavior is immoral (or immoral behavior is moral). We always have to consider the desired outcome.
And since it’s impossible to determine whether there is some morality that transcends all minds (and even then one could ask “by what standard?”), I don’t think there’s much point about arguing whether morality is relative or objective (despite the fact that we’re doing so now!). I find it more useful to simply apply humanistic philosophy, since it evaluates morality through the use of reason, empathy and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals. I’ve yet to see a moral dilemma that is solved by appealing to an objective morality.
“Your comments assume the viewpoint of moral relativism. Morality cannot improve over time if moral objectivism is true.”
Agreed—and that’s the biggest problem with belief in an objective morality. You see, as I note in my first post, there was a time when slavery (along with the other behaviors I listed) was considered an objective morality. If we regarded morality as objective, slavery would still be considered moral. The advantage of treating morality as relative is that it doesn’t lock society into behaviors that are detrimental to parts of the population. Morality can improve. Would you want to be put to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Would you kill your children for talking back to you? Would you execute someone for following a different religion from yours? If not, then your morality is different than biblical morality—and I would argue it’s demonstrably more moral than the previous “objective” standards, assuming well-being as a moral standard.
Also, there’s no guarantee that even if objective morality exists we would know what it is. We may THINK we know what it is…but the second we do, we lock ourselves into unchanging behavior relative to that morality. If we are wrong, we will forever be wrong. So regardless of whether morality is objective or relative, I would argue it’s better to regard it as relative.
“But truth be told, morality cannot “improve” on moral relativism either because “improving” implies a standard that one is measured against. There is no such standard on moral relativism.”
On the contrary, there IS a standard with moral relativism. It’s right there in the name: relative. The morality is evaluated RELATIVE to some standard. If we, as a society, agree on a goal for society—such as mental and physical well-being for as much of the population as possible—we can evaluate behavior based on that goal to determine an OBJECTIVE result (for example, killing anyone who disagrees with you is objectively bad for the segment of the population that disagrees with you). It’s not always easy to determine whether something is moral based on a goal (that’s true regardless of whether morality is objective or relative), but humans are capable of doing so as long as they treat morality as relative.
As MLK Jr. said, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Sounds like he also agreed morality can improve.
LikeLike
October 27, 2022 at 5:30 pm
Jason writes,
True, but you’ve written on the topic of morality multiple times, and if memory serves me correctly, you have never defined the critical terms. You clearly are in the objective morality camp (as I am), but you appear to consistently avoid its foundation, which is critical to providing the warrant for the claims you make here and elsewhere.
LikeLike
October 31, 2022 at 1:49 pm
Scalia, God’s perfectly good nature/character is the metaphysical foundation for morality. I’ve dealt with this in other posts related to the moral argument.
LikeLike
October 31, 2022 at 3:53 pm
Yes, I realize that, but why is God’s nature “perfectly good”? On what basis do you make that claim? As you would agree, it cannot be based on the mere claim that God is perfectly good, for that would be proof by assertion. A theological definition must give the basis for the claim, else it is vulnerable to the charge of being arbitrary.
LikeLike
November 1, 2022 at 7:59 am
I should also add that your “God’s perfectly good nature/character is the metaphysical foundation for morality” still doesn’t define what “good” means. What in the world is the definition of the “good” that you ascribe to God’s being?
LikeLike
November 1, 2022 at 5:29 pm
Every justification has a stopping point somewhere. Since God is the metaphysical ultimate, He is the last possible stop on the metaphysical grounding train. He is the ultimate grounding for morality. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be pure goodness. He doesn’t merely exemplify goodness, but is The Good itself. His nature/character is good. I’ve addressed this elsewhere.
As for moral semantics (metaethics), I don’t think I ever have addressed this, largely because I think most people have a common sense understanding of what is meant by the term. I would define good as that which is morally virtuous/right, but there is probably a better definition out there somewhere. I haven’t focused much on moral semantics.
LikeLike
November 2, 2022 at 2:06 pm
“God’s perfectly good nature/character is the metaphysical foundation for morality.”
I would like to understand WHY you think this. I’ve yet to hear a cogent explanation from anyone for how God can be good or moral when he commits or condones so many of the behaviors we ourselves use to identify evil persons, when he allows atrocities to occur to the most innocent among us, and when he deliberately set up a system to guarantee the vast majority of humanity will end up burning in hell. And what actual good has he done?
Those are issues I find honestly baffling, hardly different from when I hear people talk about Hitler with affection. It’s one of the main reasons I engage with believers: to understand this topsy-tervy mindset.
LikeLike
November 2, 2022 at 3:22 pm
You see, Jason? Without a complete argument, you’ll always get the kind of questions you’re getting here. If God exists, then of course He is the metaphysical ultimate, but that doesn’t tell us what “good” is and why God is good. Asserting it does not make it so. And your reliance on “common sense” is woefully subjective and is hardly a sufficient bar for objectivity. And conceding that God is the “greatest conceivable being” doesn’t help me understand what you mean by The Good unless “Good” is just another title for “God.” But even then, you’ll need to argue how that translates into an objective moral system.
If we’re going to assert that morality is objective, then we need to address the semantics whether we want to or not. Demonstrable objective truths are not subject to reasonable debate. So, if we argue that a particular system of morality is objectively true, then we bear the burden of proof.
LikeLike
November 3, 2022 at 4:46 am
Wow, for once I agree with you, Scalia. 😉 (Well, except the bit about God necessarily being the “metaphysical ultimate”—he could, after all, just be a limited creator of our local universe, with some more powerful being in charge of him and every other similar-level god.) Well-stated.
LikeLike
November 3, 2022 at 1:10 pm
Derek,
The problem I have with comments like yours is that, to respond, I would have to dive into all of the various issues you bring up: the problem of evil, God’s behavior in the OT, the problem of hell. I can’t do that here. Suffice it to say that the real issue you are bringing up is whether or not the Christian God is the same as the God of perfect being theology. Those are two separate questions. We can know that if God exists, He is all good and is the foundation for goodness, but still wonder whether or not that God is the same God as the Christians worship.
LikeLike
November 3, 2022 at 1:12 pm
Scalia,
I didn’t say that grounding morality in God as the metaphysical ultimate tells us what the meaning of good is. I defined “good” entirely separate from that. Do you have any comments on the definition I offered?
I didn’t ground goodness in the fact that God is the metaphysical ultimate, but in the fact that He is the greatest conceivable being. My point in saying God is the metaphysically ultimate was to show that grounding morality in God is not arbitrary, and that it’s impossible to get to any deeper foundation for morality than God. In other words, God being the metaphysically ultimate is connected to the question of moral ontology, not moral semantics. The fact that God is the greatest conceivable being is how we know He is good because it is greater to be good than to be evil, and it’s greater to be all good than partially good. I address how we know God is good at https://thinkingtobelieve.com/2011/11/29/how-do-we-know-god-is-good/.
LikeLike
November 4, 2022 at 10:22 am
Jason, you write:
I assume you’re referring to Post 10, but the only definition I see is:
Saying that God must be “pure goodness” doesn’t define “good,” and what is “morally virtuous/right” tells me only that God is morally virtuous. Well, what is moral virtue? It reduces to: God is Good. What is Good? To be morally virtuous? What is moral virtue? God. So, while we have a claim that God is synonymous with virtue, I still don’t know what moral virtue is in your system. You appear to be saying that since God is good, it follows that everything He says is good.
You state in Post 15:
Yes, I don’t dispute that, but it isn’t at all helpful in determining just what “good” is. Jason and a God-fearing slaveowner can agree that it is greater to be good than to be evil, and to one slavery is evil while to the other slavery is good. To Jason, genital mutilation is evil while to a particular type of Allah-fearing Muslim, it is honorable. Without an objective, working definition of Good, your appeal to God fails to provide the necessary warrant for the moral system you’ve adopted.
Finally, you link to a post that I replied to in the comments section. Here again is my reply:
“Moral intuition” is a moving standard that rests upon one’s culture and upbringing. So, while I most certainly agree that God is the metaphysical ultimate and that He is absolutely good, your argument fails to properly define goodness, and it fails to show why your version of goodness extends beyond one’s subjective intuition.
“Maximal goodness” sounds great to everybody, but as we all know, everybody defines “maximal goodness” differently. Just recently, pro-abortion activists waived signs with the pictures of justices with the caption, “Burn in Hell!” written on them. One can also imagine pro-life activists with the pictures of liberal justices with the caption, “Burn in Hell!” written on them. Well, who is going to burn in Hell over abortion? To one side, banning abortion is evil, whereas the other side considers an abortion ban a very good thing. Both sides would agree with you that goodness is the goal, but since both sides are defining goodness by their “moral intuitions,” nothing is settled. That’s why your arguments are inadequate. Your flawed definition of goodness fails to legitimize the claim that your moral system is objective. At best, it serves to advertise your opinion.
LikeLike
November 5, 2022 at 2:05 pm
“We can know that if God exists, He is all good and is the foundation for goodness, but still wonder whether or not that God is the same God as the Christians worship.”
Okay, I can understand if it would require an involved answer to be comprehensive, but the problem I have is not so much whether God (assuming he exists) is the same God of Christianity, but the claim that he is all good and the foundation for goodness. Wouldn’t it be just as justified to say God is evil and the foundation for all evil? The same arguments apply, merely in reverse.
For instance, the response to the problem of evil is usually to say that a good God has to allow evil in order for people to freely choose good over evil. But one could just as easily say that the solution to the problem of good is that an evil God has to allow good in order for people to freely choose evil over good. See what I mean?
And this position even makes more sense because an evil God would naturally have no qualms about lying in the Bible wherever it would suit his purposes (something a good God surely wouldn’t do).
Furthermore, wouldn’t it make sense for an evil God to permit good in the world if it would lead to an ultimate betrayal in the end when all the people who think they’ll be saved will instead be damned? What greater betrayal could there be!
And those “lucky” few who just happened to believe in the “right” religion would get to worship him for all eternity (again, does that sound like something a good God would do?). The Bible even says as much, emphasizing that narrow is the path to salvation, and that what matters more than anything is belief in and worship of God—not doing good. In fact, it says we CANNOT do good.
When I read the Bible, the only real “good” I see is God giving us the experience of life…but even then, what good is giving people life when it results in misery for literally billions of people, and in the end nearly all of them will end up being tortured forever?
So that’s why I ask…WHY do you think God is good? What do you see that I don’t?
LikeLike