Objective morality does not exist

Morality in itself is a hard theory to grasp. It is tied with ethical conduct, religious practice, and perspectives of the natural world. By the definition, as stated above, morality only need to be conduct agreed upon by group of rational people. A. Need to distinguish between rational and irrational people. First we must examine what people are rational versus those that are irrational. Simply put, if you follow the moral code you are not irrational [1]. Therefore irrationality falls into people that do not follow the morality, or are incapable of coming to a rational conclusion, usually due to some psychological illness. This, however, does not mean that those who won’t follow the code of conduct don’t recognize that it is immoral. A less severe example would be tobacco smoking. It is a fact that smoking is hazardous to someone’s health and that it can lead to outcomes of death [2, 3]. However, that does not stop many from smoking tobacco cigarettes, because they have acknowledged the facts and are not concerned of the risk. Therefore, objective morality does not require that all people follow the conduct, but that they realize within the situation that actions against the code are wrong (immoral). Furthermore those that are “irrational” due to mental disorder are not able to follow rational system: a process that uses both analysis and intuition to relay information [4]. As rational thought will relay some sort of self-preservation and self-happiness based on established laws/rules, those who cannot go through similar processes will not be judged by the moral conduct because they are not part of the system that agreed upon the code [5]. In short, you are not a part of the rational system that makes the moral code if you are incapable of rational process. B. There is a misconception between subjective and semantics. 1. Subjective morality arises within situational bounds related to nature/universe. Once upon a time human beings followed evolutionary constraints in nature. Some of those natural habits and instincts remain within our core psychology. These interactions, are based on resources and survival of self, as well as species. These interactions can be both positive and negative, and are as follows: predation, competition, commensalism, and mutualism [6]. So while one may argue that killing your own species is morally wrong, subjectively in nature there is justification for this, which usually boils down to available resources and ensuring the passing of genes [7]. So while we may think terrorism is bad, some would see it as natural competition, or patriotism (essentially survival of same kind). However, what do we do with the “grey” areas. The issues that don’t really fit within the above constraints? We simply deflect, deny or argue semantics to justify the action even though it is immoral. 2. Rape justification argues about semantics of rape rather than morality. One of the main semantics is about the definition of rape. Current definition states “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim” [8]. Despite this definition, some of the same defense mechanisms are utilized by those that do not want to be considered a rapist. Briefly, these mechanisms involve: blame of victim’s profession or sexuality, prior consent (no take backs), alcohol intoxication, or worse dehumanization [9, 10]. All these measures are about denying the fact that the person committed rape against another human being, rather than saying that rape is not immoral. In so doing, many people fall into the trap of calling the actual act of rape a subjective issue when it is quite objectively a “bad thing,” which is why one goes through so much trouble to deny their actions count as rape. 3. Pedophilia is punished amongst criminals. Pedophilia is another grey area as more and more research is being conducted. Many pedophiles argue that it is a sexual orientation to have preference for younger age, and that it is about emotional connection, as well as, platonic relationships with children [11]. Although some commit sexual offense, the pedophile themselves do not see it as harm to the child but a relationship to prepubescent human being [12, 13]. However, according to dogma, many are still punished when they enter a prison environment. Even amongst adult rapist, killers and thieves, sexual relationships with a child is seen as a worse crime [14, 15]. As the punishment is usually death or rape in prison, it would seem that there is a general consensus that does not condone sexual deviance with a child. C. Rape justification methods do not apply to rape of an infant. As before, I expressed rape itself was an immoral act that did not follow constraints of subjectivity. To eliminate possible justifications we must look at a case that cannot be twisted by semantics. The infant cannot express consent, therefore, by definition, any sexual penetration or act is rape. While I have stated some natural justification for killing youth, raping an infant has no biological, emotional, or psychological excuse for a rational person. Now there are different age groups of infant, toddler, to adolescence [16]. Also, it is difficult to pinpoint exact statistics of age groups, since most studies group infant, toddler, and preschoolers as less than 6 years of age [17, 18]. But I digress, the point of the issue is that these offenders will see the child as “pure,” and state that they are in a loving relationship as if they would be with an adult [19]. Child offenders are deflecting their actions and they are conducting themselves against rational thought, as I stated before an infant cannot, in any way, be confused or determined psychologically capable or mature to be in such a relationship by a rational person. In fact, the cases that have involved child abuse of an infant, the offender has a mental disorder (irrational person) that they state caused their actions [20, 21]. That is the only defense that a rational jury will hear because, as I stated before, the only people that are condemned for disobeying a moral code are able minded people that act irrationally (those who smoke tobacco despite the risk). Therefore, the act itself is seen as bad; if committed it is undoubtedly wrong, and the only defense one would have is to state that they are not a rational person.Unfortunately I will have to post my sources in the comment section as they go over the limit of characters.