Objective Morality

1. Objective Morality

   
   

   First, let's define these two words:

   
   

   ob·jec·tive

   əbˈjektiv/

   adjective

   1. 

   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

   "historians try to be objective and impartial"

   synonyms:    impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral

   "I was hoping to get an objective and pragmatic report"

    

   mo·ral·i·ty

   məˈralədē/

   noun

   principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

   synonyms:    ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More

   
   

   
   

   
   

   So together it is “A set of principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”

   
   

   So if you have a standard of morality that cannot be influenced by your own feelings, you can have objective morality. 

   
   

   My proposed standard:

   
   

   Does the action cause unnecessary mental, physical or emotional suffering?

   
   

   Note: some suffering is necessary and even good for us, such as the mental anguish a child “suffers” when denied a cookie. Yes, it is possible to objectively show giving the child the cookie would do more harm than good. i.e. too many sweets are bad for your teeth along other possible health risks.

   
   

   One could argue about whether something is necessary or not, but good luck justifying how the harm caused to a rape victim might be necessary. One scenario might be “Rape the girl or the whole village dies.” But then the person making the threat would be the one acting immoral since the threat is unnecessary not the one being forced to make the choice.

   
   

   Does the action diminish the other person in some meaningful way?

   
   

   Example: Stealing diminishes another person's wealth, however, stealing from someone with an excess of resources likely won't diminish the other person in a meaningful way and if the theft was to reduce suffering such as feeding your starving family, it can easily be argued that the theft was more moral than allowing your family to starve. A theft that doesn't meaningfully diminish another, but equally doesn't reduce the suffering of others, such as illegally downloading music, is unnecessary and thus can be said to do more harm than good.  I admit that there is some subjectivity to what constitutes “meaningful”, but I think it can be defined as “if it causes the person to suffer hardship such as they themselves would then starve”.

   
   

   If the answer is “Yes” to either 1 or 2, it's objectively immoral. It is difficult for personal feelings or preferences to rationally influence the answer, at least not in a way that can't further be examined objectively to remove the personal bias. 

   
   

   Is God required to have objective morality? No, you just need a standard to compare the behavior to.