Objective Morality: An Analysis

Morality, as I define it, is the system of values held by a rational, thinking agent(s) who interacts with society at large, and where the members of that society collectively determine whether any given action committed by its members is considered "good" or "moral" (i.e., promotes happiness and flourishing), or "bad" or "immoral" (i.e., causes suffering, harm, or reduces flourishing). 

Atheists will frequently define the term "objective" as being "mind-independent" to support their claim that all morality is subjective (or "mind-dependent"). Whether consciously or unconsciously, atheists who insist upon using these definitions are doing it dishonestly to quickly shut down and win the argument against their theist interlocutor. Morality is necessarily "mind-dependent," as it can only exist among thinking agents. Therefore, defining objective and subjective in this way offers no useful distinction and only functions as a lazy and manipulative "gotcha" to stop any further dialogue.

As I will not stoop to such tactics, I will not be defining objective and subjective in this limited and practically useless way. To ensure that everyone is being intellectually honest and not attacking a strawman, the definitions I will use are as follows: 

︎For something to be objective, it must be true irrespective of the one making the claim and can be verified by outside agents. 

︎For something to be subjective, it may be true to the person making the claim but not necessarily true for all thinking agents within the group or wider population. 

︎For an action to be objectively moral or immoral, the action's resulting consequence must be deemed "good" and/or "promote happiness or flourishing," or "bad" and/or "cause suffering, harm, or reduce flourishing" regardless of time in history, situation, context, or agent(s) involved.

When having discussions with theists, atheists almost unanimously assert that morality is always subjective, while theists claim to have their worldview grounded in an objective morality decreed by god. Objective, as theists define it, means that the action has been labeled as "good" or "bad" by their god and documented within their holy book (supposedly inspired by the aforementioned deity).

The distinction between objective and subjective is simply that god is the ultimate outside agent, and therefore, all actions conceived and adjudicated in the mind of god are objective. In contrast, actions thought and committed by humans—with their tiny, highly flawed, and easily corrupted minds—are universally subjective.

Theists fail to recognize that their "objective morality" is determined by the personal whims and opinions of their god, which may not be true, beneficial, practical, or applicable in every context, culture, or for all agents involved. This makes their morality equally as subjective (by either the "mind-dependent" or the "not universally true" definition I stated above) as the atheists over which they are claiming to have moral superiority. 

I became increasingly frustrated by this assertion from atheists that all morality is subjective and by the dishonest debate wordplay I was seeing throughout the internet on both sides of the argument. But could I do any better? Is there truly no action that can be classified as immoral or moral in every context? To me, this sounded like a challenge—one I intended to solve. 

With the definitions and preamble out of the way, I will begin my argument by working backward to explain why the vast majority of actions are indeed morally subjective. As this analysis is primarily targeted at atheists, it seems prudent to establish where we agree on the seemingly universal subjectivity of morality.

When discussing moral actions, it's easy to get lost in the weeds as each party in the conversation attempts to devise hypothetical situations to delegitimize a particular moral stance. I will not be using the tired moralistic theist hypotheticals involving torturing and murdering babies for fun, as I prefer my babies to have a quick death so as not to spoil the meat before grilling and eating them.

The theist is attempting to use emotional and inflammatory language in a bizarre hypothetical that everyone but their god (i.e., 2 Samuel 12.14-18, 2 Kings 2.23-24, Hosea 13.4-16) would consider to be universally, but still subjectively, bad (as their god still enthusiastically approves). But I will lay out a few examples most of us encounter in our everyday lives so we can establish a basis for my reasoning. 

There are many situations where actions generally seen by society as immoral can become moral in specific contexts among those who hold a particular political, religious, or philosophical stance. Because most actions can occur within a situation where it exhibits the opposite of its usually held moral or immoral designation, the action becomes subjective to the agent within that specific context.

Murder (defined as the purposeful and non-consensual killing of one human being by another) is an immoral action that, when done against another for greed, prejudice, or sadistic yearning, will result in the perpetrator being removed from and punished by the society among which they live.

That same society will take that murderer, imprison them, and subsequently legally murder them by lethal injection to ensure the safety and greater good of everyone in society. These pro-death penalty politicians and the voting citizens who support death penalty laws within their state believe themselves to be upstanding moral agents acting in the best interests of their families and communities. This makes murder a morally subjective act.

Lying is generally thought to be an immoral act, as the intention is to withhold information or obfuscate reality with the aim of deceiving the victim to further the perpetrator's agenda. Lying about having an affair, for example, will result in psychological pain felt by the victim at experiencing the deception, the loss of family and friends, an expensive divorce, and a very rotund family of alligators being stricken with horrible indigestion and the hiccups (allegedly). Conversely, "white lies" are generally seen as moral because they spare the feelings of another and are, therefore, reducing harm.

Abortion (defined as the intentional early termination of a pregnancy by surgical or pharmacological means) can be seen as morally neutral or good if it results in the pregnant person's life being saved or if she can live a fulfilled life because she wasn't forced to raise a child she didn't want or couldn't responsibly care for (while also saving the mental health of that future potential child).

Abortion can be considered immoral if you believe that the procedure kills a potential human life and you believe all human life must be protected beginning at conception—just not the baby after it's born because allocating funding towards childcare, food stamps, early education, Medicaid, and affordable housing would raise taxes and turn the U.S. into a failed dystopian socialist welfare hellscape; and not the mother's life either because she deserves to suffer the consequences for the crime of having sex with or without protection or getting raped regardless of age as she must be shown the wickedness of her slutty, sinful nature with no consideration for her needs and no equal punishment for the man who got her pregnant because that would be logically consistent—nope nope nopeddy nope nope not while there is breath in this body!!

Ah-hem. Sorry. 

Which finally brings me to my point. 

Although I believe that most actions are morally subjective, there is one act that is morally objective and is immoral in every single context:

Rape.

Rape is, at its core, theft. Theft in some circumstances can be seen as moral (say, the legend of Robin Hood, for example). But theft requires that the item taken without consent has value. Even a "priceless" gem is only priceless in the colloquial sense due to its rarity; it still holds a tangible monetary value regardless of how difficult it is to determine. 

But how do we put a value on someone's body? When a human is raped, and their dignity, worth, sense of safety, and autonomy are stolen (and I do mean literally stolen), how can the victim be indemnified? If they're lucky, the rapist can be arrested, found guilty, and receive jail time. But how much jail time? In the U.S., you can bet it will pale in comparison to the lifelong trauma the victim will be burdened with that will impact vast swaths of their everyday lives. Maybe they'll be awarded a settlement through the courts? How much money is someone's personhood worth? How do we begin to put a number on that? 

Answer: we can't. It's gone forever. The victim may be able to heal physically and mentally, but they will never again be the same person they were before they were violated. Medical and psychological studies confirm this. It is a truly priceless treasure that can never be returned or repaid. 

Even in the animal kingdom, rape unwittingly compels change within the organism that irreversibly alters it through evolutionary forces. Rival or inferior males will kill another male's offspring and rape his mates to establish themselves as the new alpha. The females can't speak, but they do protest against forced copulation by evolving anatomical protections, changing habitats, or forming protective groups to fight off aggressive males.

These adaptations come at a tremendous evolutionary cost but are necessary to ensure the strength of the species and avoid passing on inferior genes. The rape of an animal by an inferior male can result in weak offspring that do not survive, which harms the species overall if done en mass without any evolutionary barriers to stop its occurrence. Since it reduces flourishing, it can be considered immoral even if the agents are incapable of cognitively reasoning moral actions themselves.

But can the rape be moral if the intention and result are a net positive for the species? Animals are not aware of their "good" genes. They have arbitrary metrics which the females deem acceptable enough to submit to mating. It is strictly up to the female to determine whether the male is suitable to sire her offspring. When an unsuitable male rapes her, he takes away her autonomy and agency to choose the male with the best arbitrary features to ensure the survival and fitness of her progeny. This, again, is theft and, therefore, immoral.

But can the rape be moral if the intention and result are a net positive for humans? Humans are a species that is cognitively aware of what can be considered "best" regarding overall health, attractiveness, intelligence, and longevity. As such, wouldn't the forced impregnation by a highly fit male considered the pinnacle of physical health and beauty be morally good if it resulted in the advancement of our species?

In a word, no. In another word, gross. Eugenics, the idea that there are "superior" or "inferior" genes that can be bred in or out of a population, aims to give rise to a superspecies of humans. However, the characteristics deemed "superior" or "inferior" are subjectively chosen by the group in power. There is no objective standard by which these qualities are measured, which inherently places humans within a hierarchy with "superior" or "inferior" traits. This always makes the objective of eugenics nefarious: world domination, selfishness, greed, discrimination, hatred, and/or hubris. It is immoral by design and, therefore, cannot be a moral good that can arise from rape. 

But what if rape is needed to continue our species after a catastrophic event? I am not a humanist and do not subscribe to the notion that humans are somehow more important than any other species on the planet. Earth has a delicate ecosystem—one that depends on a global balance of predator and prey to maintain homeostasis. If humans nearly wipe themselves out due to nuclear war, the spread of antibiotic-resistant diseases, a viral global pandemic, or food and land destruction due to climate change, then we have sealed our fate and must live with the consequences.

It is not up to the survivors to correct the disastrous decisions made by world leaders or the selfish, stubborn, and stupid civilians who didn't take the necessary steps required for the preservation of their species. Men and women should not be forced to copulate to fulfill vain and hubristic notions of human superiority above all other life forms on this planet. It is not their responsibility, and therefore, it is immoral to ask this of them.

As an anti-natalist, I also see the fruits of rape brought forth in this post-apocalyptic context to be immoral, as those children would be born into a dangerous world that cannot sustain them. I see the intent as the furtherance of an immoral goal, thereby making the act and its purpose entirely immoral.

But what of the rapists? Can rapists ever be moral? Even the perpetrators recognize they are taking without consent. They may feel entitled to sex, thinking that they are "owed" sex due to narcissism or some perceived slight against their ego.

But rape is not done to give physical pleasure to the victim to increase their well-being. Rather, it is to exude power and control over another at the cost of their bodily autonomy and to wreck personal suffering upon them (of which they are well aware). They rape out of greed, revenge, entitlement, hubris, performative dominance, peer pressure, ignorance, unregulated lust, or to inflict pain or humiliation. These reasons impose harm upon the victim and are, therefore, immoral actions. The perpetrator knows his actions are nefarious and chooses to do them regardless. They may believe their actions are correct and justified, but it is to serve their own selfish desires and can, therefore, not be moral by any reasonable metric.

The perpetrator may genuinely think they're right (established with a litany of logical fallacies and faulty reasoning), but being right is not synonymous with moral. What they're doing may seem logically right subjectively in their mind (as in the previous example of perpetuating the human species), but no agent capable of experiencing states of being could conclude that the act is morally right, making it objectively morally repugnant. 

Rape, under every circumstance, is morally wrong. It is wrong regardless of culture, age, species, time in history, gender, mental state of either agent, in furtherance of repopulating a post-apocalyptic planet, war or peacetime, natural penetration or artificial insemination, selective copulation to create a superhuman race, or breeding out a minority population. There is no circumstance where the theft of someone else's body is morally justified. 

Since rape in all contexts spanning time, place, or species causes harm regardless of the agent perpetrating the act or the victim subjected to its violence, I assert that rape is the only objectively immoral act that exists.