Quite a while ago, while I was still partnering on Deux Ego, I had a series of discussions with a guy named Jody, about the difference between objective and subjective morality. He was, if I recall correctly, an atheist, who thought subjective morality was "silly", but wouldn't accept objective morality as the only other alternative.

I don't know what effect, if any, these conversations had, since they ended in a stalemate--neither of us willing to change our beliefs on the subject--but they were useful to me in thinking the matter through more fully for myself.

I wish I could find all the emails that tracked our discussion, but all I could find was this reply that I sent to Jody in answer to why one must accept either subjective or objective morality.

Read at your leisure, and please comment! Tell me I'm right, tell me I'm wrong, tell me you hate my site, but tell me something! (That was a hint to all you lurkers who never comment.)

Jody,

You know, there is no middle ground between objective and subjective morality. Either morality is objective...or it isn't, in which case it is subjective.

At the moment I am going to bypass your other comments and concentrate on the issue of morality. I recently read a book by Paul Chamberlain entitled "Can We Be Good Without God?", which, though badly written, presented sound logic and ideas.

The author suggests first that subjective morality is a ridiculous concept, as attractive a notion as it may seem at first. You don't (apparently) believe in a standard of objective morality--hence you must believe in subjective morality to some degree, subjectivity being defined as "non-objectivity". (He defines objective morality, btw, as "an objective entity independent of any human being. This entity we could call moral value, or moral truth, or a set of moral principles, or a moral standard...what we call it is not important. What is important is that this moral standard is independent of any person. We don't determine or control it. It does not change from one person to another. Nor does it go away because we don't appreciate it...Objective morality is simply there for us to discover and measure our actions against." I am not assuming that you don't know what "objective morality" means, but I am simply defining the term so we're both sure how I'm using it.)

Now, I think you will find that it is impossible to carry a subjective view of morality to its logical end. You must have discovered something of the sort already, or you wouldn't have called subjective morality "silly". The logical end of subjective morals is always chaos--"every man being a law unto himself". Subjective morality does not work. However, you won't accept the only other option, which is objective morality. So what do you do? You can't live your life on a completely subjective level, anymore than I can live out a belief that "objects don't exist". I would lose that belief quickly enough the first time I ignored a speeding train or car.

So, this is the dilemma then. Before we can discuss whether objective morality can or cannot be found in "social benefits", or in anything other than God, we first have to agree that subjective morality is logically ridiculous, and so cross it off the list of possibilities.

So...objective morality or subjective? You can have your pick, but you do believe and live out one of them.

Jamie