|
This is the position that certain actions are inherently good or bad. It holds that morality exists outside and beyond human thought, much in the same way as the Forms of Plato. As support for this concept of morality, the objectivist often cites the concensus most people would have on a certain action; for example,infantacide (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Infantacide). Most would propbably agree that killing an infant would be morally deplorable. Objectivists would argue that this concensus points to a moral truth: that killing infants is wrong. However, some would argue that despite human concensus on an issue of moral consideration, evidence of a moral truth is not provided. That is, even if all people would agree, it is not logically acceptable to concluded that (1) this demonstrates a moral truth, or (2) that moral truth exists at all.
Issues
Some may see the objections to objective moral theory as a return to continental relativism, the idea that truth is a construct of humanity, however this is not a cheritable interpretation. To say that morality is ultimately subjective is not to say that all things are subjective. Mathematical truths, for example, still stand as true, even if we cannot objectively say that killing an infant is morally wrong.
Other objections include the idea that proponents of subjective morality are immoral by necessity. Not so, simply because one does not belive that morality is objective does not mean that one has no morality. In fact, because morality is subjective for proponents of this concept, they must rely,upon the subjective moral considerations of people, either individually or in groups.
Warren Graham, 9.11.2004
|
