Suppose there were objective standards for morality. Putting aside, for the moment, just how problematic that would be (after all, what would it mean, an "objective standard"?), do you think the existence of objective standards for a morality would be any more effective in practice at getting people to comply with that morality than subjective standards for the same morality? Why or why not?
I've been thinking about the evolution of objective morality lately...
I imagine myself as the prototypical and hypothetical "man". And here's what I've come up with:
Over the course of a man's life he comes to realize certain things and builds his own moral code based on his experiences. Some of that code has been informed by his rearing. But, for the most part, he adapts whatever his base values were to his own unique set of observations about life. When he passes that evolved moral and ethical code onto his offspring, or anyone else within his sphere of influence, he doesn't always explain
how or
why he made certain decisions about what the code will entail. He doesn't philosophically explain
why he believes that telling mistruths is one of the roads to ruin. He simply says "Lying is bad!", and moves on with his day. Afterall, he's come to a reasonable conclusion about lying, so why should he have to explain it. It makes sense to him, and that's good enough, right?
As anyone who has accepted his moral code can attest, they will, for the most part, repeat and share said rule as an objective moral truth, though they aren't quite sure why. Their explanation can be as simple as "My daddy says lying is bad, so lying is bad." It's not until much later in the offspring's life that he'll have a chance to begin reconciling his own moral code with those of his father, deciding eventually which morals to retain and which to discard.
Notice, that at no point did I say that lying is objectively wrong. It's simply wrong within the worldview of the exemplary man...
And so, I believe, is true of morals guided by religion. Religious rules are nothing but a set of agreed upon parameters by which the pious live their lives. Necessary in that understanding is one of the beauties and draws of religion, simplicity. If someone or some thing already has a set of guidelines by which I can live my life, freeing my mind of the burden of having to create my own, then there's a certain appeal to that. The answers for the religious person are as simple as they are for the child... "My daddy says lying is bad, and that's good enough for me..."
There is nothing inherently wrong with subjection to that type of life. But where it's going to ultimately run into problems is with its defense through logical debate. For those who have never gone through the arduous journey of reasoning their way into a moral code, having personalized explanations for WHY something is good or bad, they are going to be left wanting when it comes to conversations like this, out of both lack of experience and lack of reasoning.
Nothing is inherently wrong, unless we personally agree that it is. The same is true for what is right. They are personalized constructs of behavior that are usually projected from the thinking man onto society as a whole. While I believe that my personal moral code is best for all humanity, I intellectually realize that I am in no position to enforce it as such.
One day I hope that Religion will make the same realization.
