Can Objective Morality Make a Comeback?
By David G. Bonagura Jr, Public Discourse:
Laws and moral prohibitions—even seemingly obvious ones like the prohibition of killing innocents—do not function in a vacuum; their meanings and powers stem from a prior metaphysical order, independent of any individual’s perception, in which they originate and can be understood.
Frustrations with subjectivism’s death grip on contemporary morality are not new. Call it what you will—subjectivism, emotivism, relativism, or egoism—the theory holds that the individual, through his private judgment, determines what is good, evil, true, or false in the world. This theory is the default moral position of most Americans today.
Subjectivism denies the existence of an objective moral order independent of the individual mind in which morality or truth is discerned. Contemporary arguments in favor of abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and legalization of marijuana, for example, almost all stem from a subjectivist worldview. When opponents of such views draw upon objective moral norms in reply, they are usually brushed off, dismissed for wanting to “impose” subjective cultural norms—patriarchy, heteronormativity, Eurocentrism—that were created solely to inhibit individual autonomy or “self-expression.”
But subjectivism’s dominance was recently shaken when certain progressives—typically proponents of moral relativism—expressed outrage over students at Stanford and Harvard protesting against Israel after it suffered Hamas’s unprovoked terrorist attack. A professor at the University of Pennsylvania called out America’s universities for failing to give students “the ethical foundation and moral compass to recognize the basics of humanity.” Without this foundation, “students will never grow in wisdom, to the detriment of our country and humanity.”
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
