Interestingly, the followers of each school of thought (subjective morality vs. objective morality) both claim to support "freedom" and right conduct - a clear statement regarding the preferential manner in which most people consider the concept of freedom, at least in theory.

The first school, claiming that morality is subjective and relative, in essance is saying that "anything you can get away with" is proper.

The other school, holding that morality is an objective absolute, maintains that anything that "the church" or "government" says you can get away with, is proper.

The scientific methods of observation and logic have only rarely been called into use in unraveling the contradictions inherent to both of these views.

In a fundamental sense, both of the above schools of moral thought, in the end rely upon force.  The principle question seems to be when force is to be applied, who is to apply it, and who gets to decide.

The moral subjectivists suggest that force is to be applied by each person.  Whatever he or she can get away with is satisfactory.

The moral objectivists suggest that force is to be applied by a divine and omnipotent authority - either a diety in the hereafter, or by the politicians in the here and now.

Certainly, there are practical advantages that can be argued in favor of each position.  There are also obvious and practical disadvantages to each position.

Our purpose however is to come as close as possible to the truth of the matter.  Only the truth can be fully and universally advantageous.

Go to next lesson ...>>