Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that 

morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for

What is Objective Morality & What Can it Teach Us?

Morality is one of many reasons why humans are unique. We have beliefs and principles we try to uphold, and this
can say a lot about us. Our morals may vary from person to person, but most of us all share similar morals. We don't
want to murder, steal, lie, and so on. There may be many reasons for why we follow our morals, from our belief in
God to the golden rule, which says that we don't want to treat someone how we wouldn't want to be treated.

There has been a debate as to how morality came to be. In this post, we will discuss objective morality, the
arguments for it, and the arguments against it.

What is Morality?

There are many philosophical interpretations of morality, but let's keep it simple. Morality is our beliefs over what is
wrong and what is right when it comes to our behavior. Morality can come from our religion, philosophy, or laws.
Sometimes, morality is black and white, meaning the behavior is either fully good or fully bad. Religious morality
tends to think this way. Other times, morality may be more gray. Lying isn't a good moral action, but there may be
some instances where lying will cause the least harm, and therefore be more just.

What is Objective Morality?

Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for
interpretation. Some people may think of objective morality as commandments from God, while other people may
think the universe has some objective rules we may follow. There are certainly some arguments for objective
morality to be had. Apologists for religion will define objective morality according to the commandments of their
God. Other people may look at some universal laws, such as murder being bad.

Objective morality says that morality exists in nature, and it's how we were programmed.

What is Subjective Morality?

The opposite of objective morality is subjective morality. Subjective morality says that our morals are all man-made,
and can vary from person to person. While there are strong morals shared by most of humanity, such as killing, many
morals are subjective as to whether or not they are correct or not.

Religion often gives birth to subjective morals. The belief that homosexuality is immoral tends to stem from people
who are highly religious, and they believe so due to it being seemingly unnatural and against the word of God.
However, those who are less religious may see no moral problem because two consenting adults of the same sex in a
relationship does not hurt anyone.

Arguments for Objective Morality

Here are some arguments for objective morality.

The Religious Argument

One who believes in God believes that our morals come from God, and because God cannot change or be
questioned, this means that his morals are objective. While there are many interpretations of religious texts, as well
as many religions, apologists tend to point out universal laws God has made, such as the Ten Commandments

Action and Consequence

There are secular arguments for objective morality as well. Proponents believe that there are many universal laws
that make some morals objective, such as murder. Killing someone in cold blood, and not because of self-defense, is
not morally justified. It ends a person's life, hurts their family, and makes you the monster. Proponents of objective
morality believe this to be the case.
Who Decides What Moral is Right?

If someone has a moral code that says murder and stealing are okay, who's to say they are wrong? The belief is that
there has to be something to govern what is right or wrong.

There Are Some Actions That Are Immoral No Matter What

Some may believe that there are some morals that are subjective, but we have morals that are more objective as
well. Let's look at the concept of rape. There aren't any arguments that can argue for it. With murder, you could say
that it can be justified if the person is hurting other people. However, there are not very many cases where rape is
justified, to say the very least.

Arguments Against Objective Morality

There are quite a few arguments against objective morality, and these include the following.

Our Morality Always Evolves

One argument against objective morality deals with the fact that what we consider to be moral and immoral seems
to change with time and it depends on where you live. Different countries and faiths will have different morals.
There may be some similarities, such as murder and stealing, but these come from the commonly held belief of the
Golden Rule. Also, these morals tend to come from empathy, which is a trait we've evolved with.

There are many beliefs that have changed over time. Once, it was believed that slavery was moral. Now, slavery is
seen as reprehensible. Morals can even change quickly. Just ten years ago, the US's belief in gay marriage was quite
different than what it is now.

Also, our laws change depending on morality. A few days ago, many would say it was immoral to smoke marijuana.
Now, our laws are changing to make marijuana more legal. This is due to shifting attitudes and the questioning of
beliefs. There are certainly laws that don't seem to be governed in morality as well, so you can't claim that laws are
the objective morality source when they can change, and when many laws have no moral basis. Is going a little bit
over the speed limit immoral? Few would think so.

Because morality always changes, this makes people believe that morality is subjective.

Objective Morality Only Covers Human Beliefs

In the end, humans are one species. While many religions believe that we are the only intelligent species, and that
our creator was focused on us and our actions, someone who is more secular may point to the fact that there may
be other intelligent life out there. What we believe to be objectively true may not be in some other galaxy, if you
believe there is intelligent life out there.

Even without the aliens, animals have different morals as well. Some animals eat their own as a part of their life
cycle. Almost all of us are disgusted over the idea of cannibalism. This is a moral inconsistency found on this earth.

What is Moral Can Bend

Let's look at murder again. In our society, murder is bad. However, there are cases where society says murder is
okay. For example, in wartime. Now, you may think that shooting the enemy is not murder, as you're defending
yourself. However, plenty of wars have involved innocent civilians getting caught in the crossfire, and there has
rarely been punishment for that. It seems that murder is okay as long as it's for the greater good of humanity.

Let's talk about stealing. This is universally seen as a bad thing to do. However, there are different situations where
stealing may be viewed less critically. Digital piracy has quite a heated debate as to whether or not it's wrong. Is a
homeless person stealing food from a supermarket that bad of an immoral action? Sometimes, even the moral
absolutes may change depending on the situation.
The Opinion from a God Can Be Subjective

Those who say that morality is objective will turn to their God. Let's assume for a moment that the god of their
religion is real. What makes his morality objective? Because he is God? This appears to be an argument from
authority, and it raises a few questions. Is a God-given law moral because it's from God, or because God makes us do
it?

Let's not forget that there are many interpretations of God and his morals. Even in the Bible, some may ignore some
morals and enforce others. It all depends on who is practicing the religion and what they believe.

What We Can Learn from This

The concept of objective morality is quite interesting. Is it limited to only the religious? Are there certain morals that
are objective? As you study objective morality and subjective morality, it does make you think quite a bit. We take a
lot of our morals and laws for granted, and we don't exactly think about their origins, or that sometimes, a moral can
be debated. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle, where there are morals that don't change, and some
that can.

This is what makes it so fascinating to be a human. What we find moral and immoral can differ, and it's interesting to
read about the many different interpretations one can have over what is moral and what is immoral.

What are the examples of general ethics?

General Ethics - At its simplest, ethics is a system of moral principles. They affect how people make decisions and
lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also described as moral
philosophy.

Examples of societal ethical behavior can include such things as: Respect for another's property. Refraining from
violence against another. Treating others with civility.

How do general ethics differ from special ethics?

Special Ethics / Specialized Ethics is the branch of Ethics which deals with a specific case or a specific scenario. It is
not “general”. Instead, it is “applied”. Applied Ethics itself is a Special Ethics. For example, in medicine, the law,
education and pedagogy, institutions such as work, etc.

For example, in education - do not copy the copy of another without giving a link. Plagiarism, do not use the work of
another as if it is your own in a book or article.

in art do not copy the work, a painting or sketch as if it is your own.

What are personal ethics? What are some examples?

Ethics is only ever personal. If it is not personal it is not ‘ethical’. There is no other kind of ethics but personal ethics.
You are personally totally responsible in every situation. No action is ethical if it is not personal. If the expression of
your core being is merely effortful mental or intellectual submission to an objective code, manners of behaviour that
are not of the very nature of consciousness that knows the self, you cannot be ‘seeing’ how unethical your
expression is. In that case even your ‘good’ expressions are unethical. Situationally appropriate expression and
behaviours that lack core personal conviction and inner unity of consciousness are also expressions of a personal
ethic but, in that case, that core ethic is unethical; it does not even recognise its own disposition. It cannot recognise
its own unethical disposition. It is encased in the habits of fear and avoidance of true seeing in every situation. It is
self interested. Pure ‘ethics’ is a state of discernment, not a list of appropriate actions, and that discernment is first
and foremost a reference to knowledge of the self, and knowledge of the self is rare. A merely “appropriate”
response reflects servitude based in fear whereas a truly ethical response may - and often does - require what is
generally considered to be an inappropriate response in the objectified description of the situation. Mere
conformity, even if to a god or a ‘sacred’ text, does not constitute ethical behaviour; it must be conformity to the self
that is known for what that self is, and when that is known, lack of conformity to that known self is the most
damnable of all expression. Hence, people naturally avoid the knowledge of the self and even prefer to conform to a
god, a text, a guru, a general or the state. Thus knowledge of the self is rare and that means ethical behaviour is rare.
Behaviour, even ‘good’ expression that is fundamentally grounded in objectified outwardly prescribed and
proscribed behaviour is not fundamentally ethical; it is fundamentally robotic, without heart, lacking connection to
personal conviction, devoid of the knowledge of self and any given situation, fraudulent avoidance of responsibility -
because it is fraudulent and preemptive avoidance of personal responsibility and accountability. Ethics is nothing
other than an ethical state of consciousness, not a list of appropriate responses and behaviours; it is one’s
foundational personal disposition which ultimately operates out of either fear or freedom, i.e., out of self
preservation or the freedom to lose the self in order to discover authenticity. An ethical person (a person with
personal ethics) is hard to find. Many will die and kill in intellectual and emotional obedience to objectified and fixed
standards of authority, thinking they are acting ethically on behalf of one god or another, one authority or another,
but they merely reflect a certain and very common shallowness of consciousness, demanding the same conformity
of others. This is not personal ethics. Personal ethics would, I say definitely would, with absolute certainty, cause a
sound consciousness to stand up to and against such a god and any authority whose form is dogma and whose right
to demand obedience is no more than mundane religious or secular authority based in and promulgated through
books, traditions, the manipulation of language, interpretation and pseudo academics, even when sincere. Personal
ethics is absolute personal responsibility with no exemptions and no exceptions. From outside the consciousness of
the truly ethical, authentic personal ethics is frightening responsibility and ultimate risk. From within the
consciousness of the truly ethical, responsibility and risk are inescapable. The nature of rebellion is what surprises
me; that is, that in some cases it appears that some individuals and entities have been able to see it all clearly and
choose to rebel against even the discovery of the light they could have acquiesced in. This is the ultimate ‘evil’ and
the ultimate form of self-destruction and it seems to care little about its many (collateral) victims. It also seems that
most of us are shielded from what all this means in mundane time and space.

Ethics is only ever personal. If it is not personal it is not ‘ethical’. There is no other kind of ethics but personal ethics.
You are personally totally responsible in every situation. No action is ethical if it is not personal.

What is social ethics? Why is it important and what are some examples?

Social Ethics is a blend of differing aspects of how society(s) are structured and managed by their participants. These
levels and scales are important as the intent is to minimize overall harm or damage to society and its members.

As the phrase suggests, “social ethics” in its largest sense deal with what is right (good) and wrong (bad) behavior in
a social unit. The social body can be broken down into simpler social units such as (for example) a person, a group,
an institution, a country or the global community as a whole. Perhaps, then comes the Universe. Then the issue
becomes the dealings of personal ethics, family or friendship ethics, work or company ethics, international ethics
and finally global ethics, respectively. This and further breakdown of above mentioned ethics provide the examples
of social ethics as a whole

What are some examples of ethics?

In my opinion, I would consider these examples of ethics.

1. Integrity in personal and professional matters

2. Honesty, truthfulness and sincerity

3. Loyalty and allegiance

4. Responsibility, reliability and dependability

5. Charity and kindness

6. Respect for others and their property

7. Self-discipline and acting with reasonable restraint

What is a Moral Dilemma?

In the situation with Gia and Kayla, you have a moral dilemma. By moral, I am referring to our standards for judging
right and wrong. A moral dilemma is a situation where:

1. You are presented with two or more actions, all of which you have the ability to perform.
2. There are moral reasons for you to choose each of the actions.
3. You cannot perform all of the actions and have to choose which action, or actions when there are three or
more choices, to perform.