Moral Subjectivity

From Summa Bergania

Here is why I do no accept moral subjectivity…

1) Start with something that is clearly objective: power. Whether you are taking Plato’s dialog “Gorgias” or anything written by Nietzsche, the people arguing that morality does not exist, always argue that it is obvious that power does exist. The guy in the room who has a gun has more power than the one who doesn’t (all else being equal). The guy who has more money has more power than the guy who has less. Even if I only have $1 more than you do, I objectively have the power to obtain one more can of Pepsi.

2) The line of reasoning then follows that if morality does not exist, and power does, our goal is obviously to maximize our power position. Make as much money as possible. Lift weights. Own lots of guns and dogs. Pay off dirty cops and politicians. Do whatever you can to secure as much power and security based on fear, intimidation, and bribes. All other people are a means to this end. There is no reason to help another person unless you can at least make money off it… or secure some other kind of favor. If the person who needs help is a bottom-dweller, urchin, cripple, orphan, or widow, it’s hard to imagine that they could repay you in any way. When they are in need, just leave those people alone.

This (as Callicles argues in Plato’s “Gorgias”) is the “morality of nature”. The biggest lion rules by his strength and nothing else. Might makes right. Human civilization should be the same, he argues… the most fit man (the ubermensch, in Nietzsche’s writings) deserves the most power. And the most fit of all should be so totally autonomous as to indulge every appetite and vice he wishes. The “justice” invented by governments is the way that the weak masses band together to muzzle and leash the ubermensch. And as such, it is a perversion of the “morality of nature”… ie, the state of no morality.

So we start with this… the logical unfolding of the case for no true morality. These are the ultimate conclusions of recognizing that power is objective and morality is subjective.

Next we examine the particulars. First, is there really a man who is more fit or deserving of power? Conan the barbarian might be strong, but surely a group of 100 men would always be stronger. Why should Conan rule and not any arbitrary group of 100? Or perhaps “fit” = “smart”. But “smart” is relative to different careers. Homer was a great poet, but Archimedes was smarter in a scientific sense. A doctor is smart on medical topics, a sailor smart on the craftsmanship of boats. Who then is the most fit? This is the approach Socrates takes to dismantle the argument.

But we can also look at it from another perspective. Denying morality means denying love. As I mentioned earlier, if power is objective and morality is not, each person should be treated as a means. Every face is therefore only a step on the ladder we climb to improving our own power. The problem is that if this is actually carried out, no society can function. If everyone promised to pay for their goods, but defaulted on their promises (which gives them more money - hence more power) the economy would collapse. If everyone stole to acquire more property, murdered anyone who opposed them, and sexually abused whenever they felt horny, no one could stand society.

It could be said that Nazis operated in a way similar to this code of no morality - they certainly showed no respect to Jewish people - but on the other hand, they treated fellow Nazis with standard moral behavior. You can isolate a person (or segment) of the population for abuse and still function as a society, but everyone can’t treat everyone else that way. That is impossible. The truth is that the Nazis were hypocritical in living by their code of no morality… they couldn’t stick to it in a full and total sense.

One step further, though, is that if we are going to treat all people as a means to gaining power, and we’re going to lie, manipulate, torture, extort, and blackmail to the maximum extent… then wouldn’t we also do so with ourselves? It is again hypocrisy to treat others in a way we don’t treat ourselves. The reasoning is black and corrupt all the way to the core. The self-contradiction can never be plucked out. If we take the one principle of power maximization at any cost, and apply it everywhere… we have to also apply it to ourselves. Thus, we advocate one standard for how we treat ourselves and another one for how we treat others.

On the other hand if we admit that we ought to love others, we have a principle that allows us to love ourselves. Or conversely, if we admit to loving ourselves, we are logically obligated to love others.