I’ve heard a lot of discussions about whether morals and values are objective or not. I’m going to try to summarize my positions on this in a couple of posts. You could probably categorize me as a “relativist”, but my opinions are a little more nuanced than that label conveys. Below is an outline of my ideas:

1. Values represent the conditions we wish to see in the world around us.
2. Morals represent the relationship our actions have with our values. Morals can aid or hinder realization of our values.
3. Values are subjective. No values are objectively good or objectively bad. This is the most critical and interesting (IMHO) element to my positions on morality and values.
4. Morals, in contrast, are objectively good or bad, depending on how well or how poorly they assist in realization of values.
5. We make several errors when we make decisions about values and morals.
   1. We can be in error about what our own values are. We can say and even believe that we hold a certain value, when in fact we do not.
   2. We can hold conflicting values without realizing they are in conflict.
   3. We can be mistaken about how effective our morals are at achieving our values.

I’ll tackle the first three today and follow up with #4 and #5 in two separate posts.

1. Values represent the conditions we wish to see in the world around us.

These first two items are in here just to set definitions. Dictionary definitions can be ambiguous, so it’s best if we start off defining important terms. Primarily I’m interested in making a differentiation between values and morals. Values are the conditions toward which we aspire. Peace on Earth is a value. Equality and fairness are values. Values don’t necessarily prescribe behaviors. That’s what morals do.

2. Morals represent the relationship our actions have with our values. Morals can aid or hinder realization of our values.

In contrast to values, morals prescribe behaviors. They are the methods or actions that you employ to realize your values. The Ten Commandments could be an example of morals. Some people confuse morals and values, placing morals at a sort of axiomatic level where values should be. “Thou shalt not kill” represents a moral imperative, but it’s senseless if there are no values around violence and suffering. Murder isn’t bad simply because murder is bad; rather it’s bad because we value health and well-being , and don’t value unnecessary suffering in ourselves or in other people.

3. Values are subjective. No values are objectively good or objectively bad.

This is my controversial point, and it will take the longest because there are many potential objections to address. I think most people take it as given that some values are objectively good and others are bad. It’s clearly bad to value pain and suffering in people around you and it’s clearly good to value health and happiness in the world, right? It seems to go without saying. Even people who hold these values are seen as somewhat unethical if they don’t also consider those good values to be objectively good and those bad values objectively bad. I mean, even if someone values peace on Earth, how could you trust that person if they don’t also think that value is objectively good.

Some people think God dictates which values are objectively good, but that doesn’t work in my mind. If God decides that something is good, all that means to me is that a really powerful supernatural being thinks that it’s good. Even if it’s God’s opinion, that’s still subjective to me. As Tauriq Moosa of The Indelible Stamp blog states regarding claiming the moral high ground by following the Ten Commandments, “You’re working on a pre-determined outline of what constitutes ethics. You haven’t said why it’s ethical.” If you want to explore this idea further, take a look at the Euthyphro dilemma or pretty much any advanced discussion about ethics.

In my opinion, the values we hold are simply preferences. But what differentiates values from other preferences are that they (1) are very important and consequential to us, (2) require the cooperation or agreement of other people if we are to realize them, and often (3) have more or less universal consensus. Contrast your “value” for peace on Earth against your preference for strawberry ice cream. No matter how much you love strawberry ice cream, you aren’t tempted to say that it’s objectively better than chocolate. You may be tempted to reduce the discussion to objective truths right away by saying that flavor preference is a matter of opinion while peace on Earth is an objectively good value, but I think that statement requires support and I don’t see how one could back it up without resorting to boldfaced assertions. I think both of them are simply preferences, but peace on Earth has those three characteristics that make us qualify them as values. That’s not to say that those three differences aren’t critically important, but such differences simply don’t make our preference for peace on Earth objectively true. They’re still preferences.

So why, then, do many people consider our value for peace on Earth objective instead of subjective like our love for strawberry ice cream? I think it comes back to those three differences. Because there is more or less universal consensus for peace on Earth, it creates the illusion of objectivity, and because the value is very important and requires the cooperation of others, it makes it easier to convince others to cooperate with us in our pursuit of peace on Earth if we can convince them that such values are objectively good instead of being our subjective preference.

Claiming that our values are objective is tempting because it short circuits the need to defend our values. It’s a powerful and rhetorically useful approach, but it lacks the intellectual rigor that’s actually necessary to discuss values and morals on a productive level. It’s a lot easier to assert that people should work to support your values rather than try to convince them why they should. I value peace on Earth, and I think others should as well, but if someone does not share that value, I should try to win them over to my side rather than browbeat them with the unsupported assertion that we should share that value. It’s more difficult, but it’s honest and respectful. Since I also value honesty and respect, then it’s my duty to uphold these values by defending my position with reason.

I’ll stop here for now and pick up soon on the topic of moral objectivity (as opposed to the subjectivity of values). In the meantime, have I left any particular questions unanswered? Do you have any objections to my positions so far? I’m interested to hear your thoughts!