Morality is Objective

Thanks for making the debate. I will argue that morality is subjective (although I would describe it as plural, or even as a prism), meaning it is chaotic, plural, and complex, coming from different areas and perspectives to focus on one point (hence the prism). I will also argue that it is driven by interest, or utility. This is not to say that morality is purely an excuse for evil, or a means to mask evil as good, but it is to say that humans construct values to implement their interest, to complete an objective. I will view morality, and truth for that matter, in a substantially different paradigm than my opponent. I will conclude that there is a world, a universe, outside of humans, but our understanding of that world is constructed by various means and various agents. Let us think of something simple to clarify this concept. A chair, for example, exists as an object, but it also exists as an idea; that is, we have an idea of what constitutes a chair. That chair as an object could be used in several ways to complete several objectives; however, we usually use it to sit in, and therefore think of it in that way. We simultaneously naturalize and conflate an object's existence with our idea of it. Morality follows a similar construction albeit more complex and more abstract. We see morality in physical objects, usually bodies, and we construct ideas and values around those objects. Foucault and Nietzsche's work on discourse from the former and genealogy from both constructs the bulk of my argument. We can think of discourse as the way in which we speak and write about things, objects, ideas etc. Discourse creates subjects such as liberal, conservative, white, black, Chinese etc. In short, there are no essential bodies, but constructs of subjects. Genealogy can be thought of as a means to understand how our ideas around a concept, a subject come to be. It is similar to the common understanding of genealogy; however, in place of people you have ideas and meanings. Genealogy's purpose is to uncover ideas that are taken for granted, taken as obvious, or what we call "common sense." We may, for example, believe that stealing is always wrong. The problem here is not that it is always wrong; it is what we make "stealing" to mean. It may seem weird to pose it this way; nevertheless, it is a legitimate framing. We have the dictionary definition, but we as subjects must negotiate with that meaning, a meaning constructed by power, or the dominant sector of society. For instance, does conquering land count as stealing? Did the US, or any country that expanded due to conquest, "steal" land? It's a tough, complex question that will get different answers from different people. I do not believe it is important to distinguish which answer is correct. I believe it is more important to understand why those subjects believe their answer, or how they construct their answer. This is the significant difference between objective morality and subjective morality (or morality as a plurality or a prism). Objective morality seeks to construct a singular moral order whereas it can dominate other perspectives and background complexities. On the other hand, subjective morality seeks to understand the complexities of the human condition; its goal is not to judge whether a value is ultimately right or wrong, but to understand why certain actors value an action as right or wrong, good or evil, or if they construct grey areas, areas that defy strict classification. Moreover, a genealogical perspective or a critical discourse analysis perspective on morality can also allow us to understand why certain subjects may desire a singular moral order. What interest do they have? What is at stake? This brings me to morality as a means to implement interests. Morality is constructed, as all discourses are, by power: institutions, groups, or individuals that maintain some sort of authority, whether it is in their discipline such as a scientist or on a governmental, hierarchical level within a state or institution such as a church. Subjects negotiate with power in their daily lives whereas they can propagate the idea or counter it, in which case those subjects would create an alternative perspective. This is a complex concept, so let us simplify it. Think of it like a science class room. The teacher gives students several materials, including a methodology in which to work: the scientific method (a method I love and respect). The book and the method constitute the discourse, and that discourse shapes "truth" or knowledge. How do we get to "truth"? Through test and experimentation. The method and the other materials (discourse) that guide us through the process of experimentation are created and distributed by power. This is not to say that all the information taught in science classrooms is wrong and only meant to brainwash little children; it is to demonstrate how knowledge and truth are constructed through discourse. We understand science through certain words and meanings that are unique to science, or even a specific discipline. Every time we use those words and meanings (discourse) we are either propagating or countering those ideas through negotiation. Morality is obviously more abstract; however, we do embody morality and conflate those embodiments with our ideas, or understandings, of morality. If I ask people to draw a criminal, for instance, they will all draw something different, but they will also likely have similarities in their depictions of "criminal." The drawings will all likely be poor, young, black men. They may be paired in several instances to drugs or violence, or both at the same time. Are poor, young, black men inherently "criminal"? No! This is both an example of racism and the construction of morality. The racist aspect is a bit clearer and I will not go into depth on it because it is not pertinent to the argument at hand. Instead of viewing "criminal" as a complex subject, we view it as simple. We may say, "No, the race thing has nothing to do with it. We are mad because he committed a 'crime'." We forget though that power constructed this subject in a way that makes it more susceptible to "crime." It is not the criminal power controls; it is the definition of "crime." That is why for example a drug like tobacco, a historically white drug, is legal while drugs that have been historically used by people of color are increasingly criminalized such as marijuana (which is not to mean that pot is not used by whites, but to mean that it has been framed as a color drug). I have brought the debate from objective vs. subjective morality (a false dichotomy) to what I believe to be an understanding that more "truthfully" depicts the complexities of the human condition. What Con is attempting to do is construct a singular moral order that simplifies and propagates one perspective. My interests are much different. I simply seek to understand.