Moral Realism and Objectivism: Do They Make Sense?

Moral Realism and Moral Objectivism are contrary to Cultural Relativism and Moral Pluralism. What do they teach in ethics? Are they sound?

THE FRENCH PHILOSOPHER and mathematician Rene Descartes (1596-1650) had taught us that one can doubt almost everything. Nonetheless, through his famous deduction (Cogito, ergo sum, “I think, therefore I am”), he himself concluded that one could not doubt successfully his own existence. (Read: Methodic Doubt: The Cartesian Method of Philosophy)

Moral realism attempts to put forward an additional contention—one cannot doubt successfully a phenomenon of his own existence, namely his moral experience.

Moral realism claims that the existence of moral facts and the truth (or falsity) of moral judgments are independent of people’s thoughts and perceptions. It maintains that morality is about objective facts, that is, not facts about any person or group’s subjective judgment.

Very much compatible with moral realism is the meta-ethical theory called moral universalism. Also called moral objectivism, it theorizes that moral facts and principles apply to everybody in all places. According to the theory, some behaviors are simply wrong. It further holds that there are moral principles that apply to all similarly situated persons, regardless of nationality, citizenship, culture, race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or any other differentiating factor.

Most of the adherents of these two theories can be found in those who believe in a God-based ethics.

The sense of moral obligation and accountability

Advocates of moral realism and objectivism argue that even non-theists give evidence that men do experience moral obligation. Contemporary secularist Kai Nielsen, for instance, recommends that one “ought” to act or follow the rule, policy, practice, or principle that maximizes happiness and minimizes pain.

Concerning his principle of justice, he states in his book Ethics Without God that, “it is not enough just to seek maximization of human happiness … and minimization of suffering, but that we must maximize and minimize it fairly” (Nielsen, 1973, p. 82).

Obviously, Nielsen’s “must” is supposed to be taken as a term of moral obligation such as “ought” or “should.” From this, it  is  clear  that  this  non-theist  recognizes that people do experience moral obligation. Even the outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins explicitly declares that there are “moral instructions on how we ought to behave.”(Dawkins, 2006, p. 347)

Moral realists and objectivists thus conclude that indeed, people are moral agents and they can possess knowledge that some things ought to be done while other things ought not to be performed.

Accordingly, such fundamental moral concepts, especially the so-called moral obligation, have “binding force” and “overriding character” features which explain that which is called “moral accountability.”

The existence of moral values and absolutes

Doctor of Philosophy William Lane Craig claims that there is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of physical objects. He argues that actions like rape, torture, and child abuse are not just socially unacceptable behavior but are moral abominations (1994, p. 124).

Even Michael Ruse himself, a known secularist and Darwinist, admits, “The man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.”(1982, p. 27)

It is thus believed that some actions are in fact wrong. In the same way, some things like love, justice, and respect are truly good. Correspondingly, we can also identify some discernible moral absolutes or those truths that exist and apply to everyone.

One example is the absolute that “you ought not to torture babies for fun on feast days.” Moral rules of this kind are self-evident that regardless of who you are, where you are, or what time or culture you are in, it is hard to imagine that acts like it could ever be morally justified or how they could ever be considered anything less than evil.

Also Check Out: The Worldview of Atheism by Jensen DG. Mañebog

The existence of moral law

When we accept the existence of goodness, we must affirm a moral law on   the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. Thus, if it is true that some actions are good and some are actually bad, then it is also true that moral law exists.

The classic writer and philosopher Clive Staples Lewis  (1898-1963),  in  his book The Case for Christianity, demonstrates the existence of a moral standard or law by pointing to men who quarrel. (Read: Moral Standards and Non Moral Standards)

He explains that whenever we witness two persons quarreling, we often hear them making remarks against each other.

Lewis contends that the man who makes the remarks is not just saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him.

He is rather appealing to some kind of standard of behavior that he expects the other man to know about. Interestingly, the other man, as a response, would typically try to make out that what he has been doing does   not really go against the standard. Or, that if it does, there is some special excuse or special reason in that particular case.

For Lewis, this manifests that both parties had in mind some kind of law—  rule of fair play or decent behavior, or moral rule—about which they really agreed upon. Lewis concludes that quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong.

And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless the two parties involved had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are, just as there would be no sense in saying that a basketball player committed a violation unless there was some agreement about the rules of the game. In morality, according to Lewis, moral law exists and it is the “rule of the game.” (1943, pp. 5-6)

People’s knowledge of moral law

Moral law is also called Law of Nature because early philosophers, according to Lewis, thought that everybody knows it by nature and does not need to be taught it. It does not mean, of course, that we would not find an odd individual here and there who does not know it, just as we unsurprisingly meet people who are colorblind or dyslexic or tone-deaf. Generally speaking nevertheless, the human idea of decent behavior is said to be obvious to everyone.

To work on the idea that moral law is unknown to humans is to engage in many absurdities. For one thing, all the things we say about war, as Lewis explains, would be nonsense if people do not know the moral law. He stresses that there would be no sense in saying that the enemy was in the wrong unless “right” is a real thing which the opponents (say the Nazis) knew as well as we did, and ought to have practiced.

Lewis explains that if they had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for “the color of their hair.” (1943, p. 6)

The objectivity of morality

On the differing reaction that the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities, Lewis answers that such a claim is not accurate.

As Lewis explains it, different civilizations and different ages only have slightly different moralities but not quite different ones. In other words, there may have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference.

In fact, in comparing the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what is striking, says Lewis, is how very like they are to each other and to our own.

To illustrate the point, he assumes that one can not present a country where people are sincerely admired for running away in battle, or where a man feels proud for double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him—just as there is no country where two and two make five.

Regarding selfishness, men may have differed as regards to whom one ought to be unselfish—whether it is only to his own family, or to his fellow countrymen, or to everyone. But people have always agreed that one ought not to put himself first. In other words, selfishness has never been truly admired anywhere.

Concerning marriage, men may have differed as to whether one should have one wife or four. But people have always agreed that one must not simply have any woman he liked. Different civilizations and different ages thus have only “slightly different” moralities and not radically distinct moralities.

As well-known husband- and-wife historians Will and Ariel Durant also conclude, “A little knowledge of  history stresses the variability of moral codes, and concludes that they are negligible because they differ in time and place, and sometimes contradict each other. A larger knowledge stresses the universality of moral codes, and concludes to their necessity.” (Durant & Durant, 1968, p. 37)

Lewis adds that another remarkable thing is that whenever we find a man who says he does not believe in a “real right and wrong,” we would find the same person “going back on this a moment later”:

He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he’ll be complaining, ‘It’s not fair’. A nation may say treaties don’t matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties don’t matter, and if there’s no such things as right and wrong—in other words, if there is no Law of Nature [i.e. Moral Law]—what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Haven’t they given away the fact that, whatever they  say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else? (Lewis, 1943, pp. 5-6)

ANALYSIS

Filipino Philosophy professor and textbook author Jensen DG. Mañebog evaluates moral realism and objectivism in the following manner:

“Moral realism and objectivism are widely accepted for they are sensible and highly defensible. They could prove, for instance, that it is apparent in the actions and words even of those who deny the existence of objective moral law that there are sorts of rules of fairness and that these principles are also obvious to them.’

“These theories provide valuable contributions in the study of morality. For instance, they require that a moral theory, to be deemed philosophically sound, must be able to account for the existence of an objective moral law. A proposed foundation of ethical theory must be able to satisfactorily explain, for instance, why we experience a sense of moral obligation, as well as its “binding force” and “overriding character.” ‘

“The worldview endorsed by a purported moral theory must be capable also to account for the moral accountability in ethics. Without real accountability, a proposed moral system would be like a legal system without real sanction or punishment for the   law offenders. In such a condition, there would be no essential difference between following and transgressing the laws.’

“The theories also demand that a sensible moral theory must be able  to explain why it is wrong to just live for self-interest just as we please. It must have      an explanation why even though a person is sufficiently powerful, like Hitler or any dictator, he must not ignore the dictates of morality and live in pure self-indulgence.’

“Finally, moral realism and universalism entail that a moral theory to become rational must be able to satisfactorily account for moral values and absolutes. For example, it must be  able  to  justify why  acts of  self-sacrifice  and  heroism  matter in morality and that virtues of compassion and kindness are not mere hollow abstractions. Moreover, the theories require that a good moral theory must never endorse a self-chosen, flexible morality that one can adjust at will … continue reading

Related: Secularists’ explanations on some ethical facts

So what do you think: Do Moral Realism and Objectivism make sense?

*Looking for other assignments (English or Tagalog)? Search here:

Copyright © Marissa G. Eugenio & Prof. Jensen DG. Mañebog/MyInfoBasket.com

To professors: You may share this free lecture as a reading assignment of your students.
For other free lectures in Ethics, visit: Homepage: ETHICS Subject Free Lectures

Read: From Socrates to Mill: An Analysis of Prominent Ethical Theories by Jensen DG. Mañebog

Free Lectures for Ethics Subjects:

What is Moral Dilemma (And the Three Levels of Moral Dilemmas)

Related: Reasoning and Debate: A Handbook and a Textbook 

Also Check Out: From Socrates to Mill: An Analysis of Prominent Ethical Theories, also by author Jensen DG. Mañebog

NOTE TO STUDENTS: If the comment section fails to function, just SHARE this article to your social media account (Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, etc) and start the conversation there.