I’m making a morality FAQ based on all the work I’ve put into this discussion. Here is a more meticulous version of a few points I made:
Difficulties with Subjective Morality
1) Moral progress is Impossible
In a blog post attempting to outline Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense, Cole Hellier stated the following:
“We humans have a lot to be proud of: by thinking it through and arguing amongst ourselves, we have advanced morality hugely, with Western society today giving vastly better treatment to individuals, to women, children, religious minorities, foreigners, those of other races, the disabled and mentally ill, criminals, etc, than any previous society.”
We can envision moral change as a view moving from A to B. Moral improvement is moving from A to B which is closer to C (the standard). Without a standard we only have change, not improvement. Contrary to what the author above asserts, we can’t actually call something a moral advance unless we have an objective standard by which we can measure moral change. A person could define their own moral system and set their own standard by which they could then measure everything else. But the real problem is how does one compare one moral system with another moral system? Abolition is moral progress to the slave but not the slaver. The person who owned slaves saw the process as theft of their legally owned property. Without an external, objective standard, this is just a matter of opinion, like preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla. What is to stop a person from adopting a standard that prioritizes white males and excludes or views “women, children, religious minorities, foreigners, those of other races, the disabled and mentally ill, [and] criminals” as sub-human?
Imagine you draw a map outlining the United States using a small number of straight lines. In a revision you erase several of the lines and replace them with a lot of smaller jagged ones. You then declare: “My new map is better than the other one.” But if there is no actual coastline to the United States that exists outside your head, how could your map actually be a better representation of it? C. S. Lewis said something similar:
“The reason why your idea of New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said ‘New York’ each means merely ‘The town I am imagining in my own head,’ how could one of us have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all.”
2) The Concept of Subjective Moral Progress is Narcissistic
As noted above, subjective morality lacks the ability to identify genuine moral progress. In response to this an intelligent atheist once told me:
“One knows that morality is better by using our subjective appraisal of morality.”
The claim is that we can have a subjective moral system and measure growth towards or away from that moral system from within it. I do not disagree. A person can subjectively claim whatever they want and anyone is free to subjectively disagree with them. But defining moral progress in relation to your own subjective standard is analogous to throwing a dart at a piece of wood and declaring wherever it hits is the bullseye. My response to a person espousing this view would be:
Your subjective standard for “moral advance” boils down to “people agreeing with you.” When society or people become more like you and share your beliefs , you call it advance or more progress. When society or people become less like you and disagree with your beliefs , you call it moral regress. Subjective morality comes with a blatant narcissism when progress is defined in terms of your own personal outlook. This is a form of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. If the standard for “better” is “what you currently think,” then you are always perfect by definition. Does the sun also revolve around you?
Vinnie