The Temptation of Ultimate Objectivity

I have been writing a little on morality this week, contemplating that, while there might not be some absolute objective measure for moral action, that does not mean that we cannot evaluate moral action with objectivity. The point is to agree to moral standards to weigh our choices. The standard may be subjective, but the evaluation can become objective because it's not just about personal preference. We are judging actions based on how they fulfill or fail the agreed-upon standard.

I admit I understand the temptation of some ultimate authority, like a deity, to give some final judgment to our actions. Who hasn't dreamed of standing before a judge with reams of evidence to convict someone who has wronged us or society at large? For wrongs that don't rise to the legal standing of some crime, we might feel the sting of unfairness. We would like to see just retribution for the repeat liars, the people who speak ill of us behind our back, those who repeatedly break promises, or whatever minor offense that causes distress in our lives.

This can extend to the people we imagine doing wrong. We know there are people living improperly everywhere, and we'd like for them to receive their just due because of it. We like to imagine that an all-knowing judge will be privy to the private books of our lives to see every bad thought and crime, small or large. And we'd like for him to see the overwhelming good lives we've led. God serves as a final absolute arbitrator, making sure that fairness wins out at the end of time.

It's also a wonderful dream that I will be vindicated when all is said and done because this all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving being will agree with my assessment of right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral. Doesn't everyone want to think that they have come to an understanding of morality?

The problem is, I don't see a basis for thinking there is some ultimate judge of behavior or any objective morality. The deity people worship seems elusive and can only be "proved" by appeals to ignorance and god-of-the-gaps type rationalizations. Although believers claim he intervenes in their lives, there is no way to test to ascertain that it is true, especially when he has mysterious ways. As for some objective morality, what we see is when we look across time and cultures is different systems. Sure, there are some constants, like don't murder, but a few commonalities is not enough to say we all just know moral actions.

It may leave a bitter taste in our mouths that some actions will never be punished or that our legal system is imperfect. If there is someone in our lives that lies repeatedly, breaks promises, and/or does serious harm to us, the best we can do sometimes is remove that person from our lives. That is the punishment. Unsatisfying to know that the person will go on to do more harm in others' lives, but that is reality. It is also distressing to know that some people literally do get away with murder, as well as theft, assault, and other crimes. But this is all part of accepting reality.

Since I don't accept the concept of sin, I do not believe that we are sinful beings. I think humans are imperfect beings. Some strive to make the world better and others don't. Some people are good to those close to them and horrible to strangers. Some are the opposite, generous to strangers and abusive to their families. There are complex psychological reasons for why people are the way they are, and realizing that the world is and has always been this way is part of removing the temptation of objectivity.

As I said in yesterday's post, the appeal to some objective morality via god is a thought stopper. We can't begin a conversation about whether an action is moral or immoral if we base our judgment on what a purported deity thinks. We cannot actually engage in a dialogue about the action because this god has already determined for us what to think. In addition, as we have decided to follow the deity's advice, we might look for harm where there is none, or find the harm caused by other factors and falsely attribute it to the act. This is notably the case for sexual orientation, where I see fundies point to suicide rates, substance abuse, and AIDS. None of those is necessarily because of orientation. The societal stigma experienced by individuals because of their orientation is a factor that needs considering. And as for AIDS, we can see reduced rates when protection is used, so the illness is not a direct result of being gay.

Sometimes the harm seems only to be the speaker's notion of the way society should work, how people should behave. They seem outraged that people different from them exist in the world. This is not a real harm, and part of the remedy is accepting that life is different from your imagining of it.

These discussions are important to have if we want to create a better world for ourselves and others. If we want the kind of freedom that allows people self-determination and autonomy, we need to engage with our moral standards to that we can really measure right action. It is tempting to think that an ultimate justice exists at the end of the road, but we have to accept that there is no reason to think it does.