Morality is Both Objective and Subjective

(Up until now, I have yet to write a full blown article for SOLO. I finally decided to write the following piece and submit it, but it was rejected because the editors feel it strays too far from Objectivist principles.

I was encouraged, however, to place it in the dissent forum. Seeking greater visibility, I asked if I could place it here, and my request was granted. I'm expecting a little flak from this, but don't blame me - George Cordero dared me to do this!)

Morality is Both Objective and Subjective

In my time here at SOLO, there has never been a shortage of debate on issues of morality and moral standards. Some of the more active recent discussions certainly prove this point. And no matter how many thoughtful, intelligent people weigh in on these topics, there never seems to be any sort of resolution or agreement on divisive moral issues. At best, a debate reaches some sort of ‘agree to disagree’ conclusion.

All this begs an important question:

If Objectivists and those friendly to the philosophy believe that morality is objective, why then is there no clear consensus so many moral issues?

I’ve been pondering this issue a great deal lately, and just last night as I was about to fall asleep, I made a personal breakthrough in beginning to answer this question. Most importantly, I’ve concluded that morality debates need to make more of the distinction between interpersonal and intrapersonal morality, as I’m beginning to believe that the two concepts should be discussed and debated under separate parameters and criteria.

Interpersonal Morality

Interpersonal morality applies to actions and exchanges between two or more individuals. Moral evaluation of interpersonal relations is objective, and can be facilitated by simply asking questions such as:

- Whose rights are being violated?

- Is force, fraud or theft being initiated?

- Is someone acting against the consent of another?

Standards of interpersonal morality are so objective that we even tolerate and endorse state intervention in enforcing them. Thus there are uncontroversial laws in nearly every human society banning theft, murder, rape etc. (Have you noticed that we spend very little time on SOLO debating the morality of a serial killer?)

Intrapersonal Morality

Intrapersonal morality applies to actions undertaken by individuals that don’t violate the consent or individual rights of others. Gambling, prostitution, recreational drug use, homosexuality, casual sex, pornography – these are the sorts of issues which tap into the intrapersonal sphere, and these are also the sorts of issues that seem to end up in a never-ending heated debate.

Although the specifics of each intrapersonal moral issue may differ, there are generally two camps that emerge in each discussion. One camp feels that as long as consent and volition are present, there is no immorality to speak of, end of discussion. The other group feels that there are objective standards of intrapersonal morality, and that moral judgment can and should be passed in this regard.

I have seen cogent arguments presented from both sides, and I’m beginning to come to the conclusion – quite uncomfortably I might add – that intrapersonal morality is subjective. Yes, I am invoking the four letter word of relativism. The reason I feel this way is because no one has yet handed down any universally agreed upon standards of intrapersonal morality. Everything always seems to come down to context or individual situation.

My challenge to those who disagree with this assessment is to once and for all lay down universal, objective standards of intrapersonal morality, while avoiding rationalistic thinking. Theoretically, we should be able to have a consensus on the issue of casual sex in the same way that we agree that murder is wrong, if in fact all morality is objective. I don’t see that happening anytime soon, however.

Fortunately though, even if it’s true that interpersonal morality is objective and intrapersonal morality is subjective, it seems clear that government should only be concerned with the former. Attempts to legislate the latter by force lead to nothing other than oppression. And on that point, I hope we can agree to agree.

Post 1

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 11:41pm

You’re right; this does stray from Objectivist beliefs (Insolence!) I like the article though and it does address something I think has been avoided.

That said, I disagree with your article; not with your logic but with one of your premises. You are absolutely right to divide up the actions of people dealing with others and dealing only with themselves. What I think is the problem is that what you call “Intrapersonal morality” should not be called morality at all.

A crucial step here is defining morality; Objectivist thought here is especially vague in explaining what exactly are the limits of morality and what are just ‘actions’ with no moral consequence.

An intrapersonal decision as you defined it, I believe, cannot be a moral one. My definition of morality is a code of conduct used when dealing with other people. Objectivist morality in particular fits well with this definition. I am not a philosopher (although being here I obviously dabble with it) and I see this issue very simply: say you were completely alone in the world, the last man alive or something like that. Can you be immoral or moral? No, you can burn down a block, raise all the havoc you want but you can’t perform an immoral action.

All those intrapersonal actions you described “Gambling, prostitution, recreational drug use, homosexuality, casual sex, pornography” MAYBE can have a moral angle to them but they all depend on others; what is the sex trade, gambling your family’s savings, robbing a store high? All I’m saying is that we do not live in a vacuum and when you clearly define morality and intrapersonal actions, you will see that they have no moral bearing at all.

Post 2

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 6:09am

Pete,

I appreciate your thought-provoking article. Allow me to give your thesis a different spin.

In my series of articles aimed at helping newcomers to integrate Objectivism into the fabric of their lives, I suggested that each person's Governing Values will adduce from that person's own unique nature, background, experience base, etc. The Objectivist Supreme and Ruling Values of Self-Esteem, Reason and Purpose apply globally to all people. Within the bounds of these universal values, however, a wide range of possibilities exist that conform to the objective realities of both the outer and inner worlds.

Rather than "objective" and "subjective," I prefer the descriptors "universal" and "particular." The universal values apply to all people and have a common root of objectivity. The particular values apply to YOU -- Your Own Uniqueness, with this acronym credited to the Franklin Covey company.

Objectivism holds individual human life as the standard of all values. The Governing Values represent the standards to which a person holds himself as his own unique person by his own nature, thus driving his overall Self-Esteem that remains universal to all people. Likewise, in all his unique chosen Roles in life, he must exercise the universal value of Reason without exception. Similarly, his consciously chosen personal Mission Statement aligns his particular uniqueness with the universal human value of Purpose.

With all that said, much of the conundrum you pose becomes explicable in terms of Objectivism. For example, by their natures, Howard Roark's objective purpose in life was to build architecture, while Peter Keating's was to paint pictures. Because Keating evaded his nature qua Keating, he followed an immoral path to an unsuitable career.

Regarding sexual orientation, we can make a similar analysis. Whether science proves this orientation genetic or environmental -- and I argue it will prove to be a combination -- the fact remains that few people who identify their orientation have demonstrated an ability to change. More to the point, when they manifest their orientation behaviorally, the question remains: Does such behavior harm the participants? When discussing morality, one must consider not just physical harm, but psychological harm as well. Extreme sports like skydiving may bring great physical risk, but the psychological risks of living a passion-free life may make the lives of the participants so bland as to diminish their desire to live.

In conclusion, I argue that you need to re-think your divisors, changing the overall spectrum of "objective and subjective" to "universal and particular" so that you can ground all distinctions back to objective reality.

Luke Setzer

Post 3

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 8:04am

Nice post, Pete. Sounds like you're treating intrapersonal matters like mere tastes, where X likes chocolate, velvet, and gambling -- or vanilla, velour, and homosexual love. Interesting.

Clarence, I vaguely recall that Rand asked the same thing you did: Would you need morality if you were alone on a desert island? And I think she concluded that that is where you'd need it the most. And I also seem to recall Peikoff writing about how brushing your teeth is a moral choice. But I don't remember where I read this stuff (hints, anyone?). If I didn't just make it all up, then I think the O'ist limit on morality begins and end with the individual, his or her life and happiness, alone or in relation to others.

And I just want to add that I think I agree with Luther's post. The thing is, even if we do use "universal" and "particular," Pete still has a point that O'ists don't disagree much (if at all) over interpersonal stuff (like whether it's wrong to violate someone else's individual rights), and to my knowledge interpersonal stuff doesn't perfectly correlate to the "supreme and ruling values." What gives?

Jordan

Post 4

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 8:11am

When talking about the word Morality, people have different ideas as to what it means. The way the dictionary defines it is open to interpretation:

Morals

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action.

Morality

The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

Who is the judge you may ask? That is not clearly defined. When we are brought up thinking in Altruistic terms most have a connotation of a morality in regards to society.

If you take it to mean in society then you can define a set of standards that are either good or bad for society and how people interact within it. With this definition however you really are not defining the morality of each member of society which is a higher order (without members you will not have a society) so morality really cannot be placed here and be considered a true morality for a man to follow.

If you define it in its simplest terms of -judgement of the goodness or badness of an action for the purpose of that human beings prosperity- then it has different ramifications.

I agree with Luther on this and most O'ists I think believe in this definition. "Supreme and Ruling Values of Self-Esteem, Reason and Purpose apply globally to all people."

Either way they both can be Objectively defined (if you have an objective definition of morality). You also need to keep in mind that there can be no contradictions and that any morality that is a rule of conduct for the life of a human being it also must apply to all human beings.

As in the case where someone is the last man on earth or on a deserted island, HE is the judge of his own moral character. So we can say that given there will always be one to judge morality then the simplest objective definition would be the three -self-esteem, reason and purpose-. All others are what I would call sub-morals or ethics based on those supreme morals (and without being in contradiction to them) when dealing with others.

Regards,

Jeremy

Post 5

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 9:21am

Jeremy wrote:

Pete still has a point that O'ists don't disagree much (if at all) over interpersonal stuff (like whether it's wrong to violate someone else's individual rights), and to my knowledge interpersonal stuff doesn't perfectly correlate to the "supreme and ruling values." What gives?

The Virtues required to practice Reason include Independence, Integrity, Honesty and Justice. The basic Vice of initiating physical force and fraud against others violates their rights by interfering with their means of survival -- their Reason. So violating rights amounts to the implementation of Unreason by force. This fits squarely into the "Supreme and Ruling Values" model.

Luke Setzer

Post 6

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 3:29pm

http://home.earthlink.net/~j.s.ryan/writings/rationaltemper.html

Pete, check that out and see what you think. While the page is critical of Rand, try to look past that and see whether you agree with what Blanshard says about subjective and objective value.

I think other philosophers have called such values "agent relative" and "agent neutral" or something like that. However, I think that sometimes, the distinction is overlooked by moral absolutists who confuse themselves with moral objectivists (a moral objectivism can still have room for some subject dependent features of morality).

Post 7

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 4:37pm

Next, thanks for the link. Not being well versed in philosophy, there were some references to philosophers and concepts that I'm not that familiar with, but I found it thought provoking nonetheless. It seems that this Blanchard fellow might be worth exploring; he seems sincerely dedicated to reason.

Post 8

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 4:51pm

Luther,

You quoted me, not Jeremy. Just wanted to make that clear. Anyway, I understand your response. My contention is really that I think Pete is onto something when he notes that O'ists go bonkers over gambling, sex, and drugs and not over whether to initiate force on another. Why is this the case? Is what you are suggesting (with the idea of "particulars" in mind) that it's moral for, say, some people to sleep around and do drugs and immoral for others to do so?

Jordan

Post 9

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 6:55pm

Let me give what I think is the conventional Objectivist position on these topics.

The first issue is how morality is approached. Some of the discussion here seems to focus on moral judgment. If judging morality is the most important thing, then it's true that things like brushing your teeth aren't very interesting. Nobody is going to say you're a hero for doing it, or condemn you as the most evil man in history. This kind of approach is looking for big actions that are decidedly good or evil.

Let me add that I think the root of this approach is in conventional, altruistic ethics. Altruism isn't something that you practice normally. You only do it occasionally. Sacrificing your life for other people is not a day to day event, but is the crowning achievement of that moral system. So when you talk about morality in that environment, you talk about these big decisions that you perform in order to be moral. Day to day events are ignored as not being relevant. If you're not making a major sacrifice, you're not being moral. If you're not hurting someone else (also a typically rare event), then you're not being immoral.

Objectivism starts at a different point. Instead of looking for indicators of good or evil in people, morality is really a guide to living. We only have so much time and energy to spend on different actions. We have to have a method of comparing the different choices, and choosing between them. Morality is the tool we use to make those decisions. Every choice we make is a moral choice, and has moral significance because we're choosing. Forget about judging other people for a minute. To understand ethics, you have to think about how it is that we make choices ourselves. That is the key to morality.

Once you have that understanding, then you can critique other people's choices, and even your own. You can say "Well, I shouldn't have done that." Or you can say, "It would have been better if you had done this". You can evaluate whether the decisions made were really optimal or not. You can also determine whether they were aiming at the wrong values entirely. But all of this moral judgment is a consequence of morality, not the primary. The primary part is in guiding your choices.

Picking two standards, one for things that affect others and one for things that don't, will inevitably lead to two different choices, and reconciling is a problem. How do you choose which is more important? To rationally reconcile them, you need some third standard that subsumes the first two. In other words, you need one single standard by which you can judge all of your different choices. Objectivism says that standard should be "life".

Let me add that Pete's discussion of interpersonal morality is limited to the use of force. Even other areas of morality directly dealing with other people, such as relationships, charity, justice, etc., are lumped into the intrapersonal category. I would argue the names of these groups are wrong. The first category is actually "Politics". The second is "non-political morality". Ethics includes both.

Now when Pete says "One camp feels that as long as consent and volition are present, there is no immorality to speak of, end of discussion.", that may be true that there is a camp, but they're not arguing from an Objectivist perspective. The Objectivist perspective does not judge the action primarily from the secondary individual (the one not making the decision but still involved). Objectivism judges the action based on the person making the decision. Did he best utilize his time and energy? You can answer that question regardless of whether anyone else is involved. That's why it's still possible to be immoral when you're alone on an island. The fact that you're alone doesn't make every choice you have equally good.

Pete than says "Everything always seems to come down to context or individual situation." He's right, it does. But he's wrong if the thinks it's unique to non-political ethics. Politics has the same problem. Just look at the raging debates over whether it's morally right to invade Iraq. The context is incredibly important. Even the concepts of "murder" vs. "killing in self-defense" shows how important context is. The fact that even in a conventionally altruistic society there must be laws against murder and theft means that the concept isn't as alien to people as the idea of a morality that affects every choice you make.

Pete concludes "Theoretically, we should be able to have a consensus on the issue of casual sex in the same way that we agree that murder is wrong". It doesn't exactly work this way, for the reasons already stated. Context is so important. Imagine if there are two women you could date. They seem to be equal in every way, except that one is incredibly beautiful while the other is somewhat plain. In this situation, you'd go for the beautiful one. Going with the plain one would be a worse choice. It would be immoral to go with her. But if the beautiful one dropped dead, you wouldn't be betraying your values to date the surviving plain one. You're choosing between different available options, and that means the situation your in is incredibly important.

Why is there so much debate about topics like casual sex? Because like most things in life, there are costs and benefits. The obvious benefit to casual sex is that it feels great. A downside could be that if you treat sex casually here, you'll have a hard time taking it seriously when you find someone you like. By treating it as just a physical pleasure in one case, you might prevent yourself from experiencing it as a psychological/spiritual pleasure in the other. Now, which of these is bigger? The benefit, or the cost? It's difficult to say. If you never have a chance at finding true love, then denying yourself sex serves no purpose. Casual sex has no cost. If you do, but it's won't happen anytime soon, then the cost is there, but the cost of abstinence is high too. The point here is that even with just a single cost and a single benefit, it's not always easy to see what the right choice is because their magnitude can vary per person by the situation. And that's if there are only two factors to consider. More likely, there are a ton of them.

Hope that helps with Pete's points.

Clarence takes a common position that morality only exists when other people are affected. Coming from an altruist world, it's an easy trap to fall into. But as I've said above, it's not the Objectivist position. In fact, it's not consistent with Pete's argument either, which despite the names he gives the two areas of ethics, one is politics.

There are people who argue, as Pete kind of says, that politics is the only real area of ethics. They are libertarians. For them, consent is the only thing of moral importance. Once you have it, anything goes. But this is a huge disagreement with Objectivism.

Luther makes the point about Universal vs. Particular values. There is some value in this distinction, especially in formulating general principles of action. But I want to warn that when it actually comes down to choosing between values for a specific person, the distinction doesn't matter. You don't treat universal values any different when you make the choice. I don't care if everyone else needs material wealth in order to live...I do it because I need it. The fact that other people share this value doesn't affect my choices. I choose which action benefits my life.

Also, Luther argues the basic vice is initiation force. That unfortunately takes a interpersonal view of morality. Given the virtues, the vices should be things like "irrationality, laziness, dependence, humility, hypocrisy, dishonesty, and unjust". In other words, there's plenty of immoral habits even when you're respectful of other people's rights.

Post 10

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 8:27pm

Thank you everyone for your comments thus far - there is much for me to think through before I have anything meaningful to contribute again.

Post 11

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 3:22am

Clarence Hardy wrote: What I think is the problem is that what you call “Intrapersonal morality” should not be called morality at all. ... An intrapersonal decision as you defined it, I believe, cannot be a moral one. My definition of morality is a code of conduct used when dealing with other people. ... say you were completely alone in the world ... Can you be immoral or moral? No, you can burn down a block, raise all the havoc you want but you can’t perform an immoral action

.

See Joseph Rowlands's reply on this. You are wrong about Objectivism and morality. Ayn Rand pointed out that alone on a desert island, you would desperately need morality. That is one of the essential distinguishing characteristics of Objectivism: its truths do not depend on other people.

In economics, this is called a "Crusoe concept." How would Robinson Crusoe act? Economists -- and moralists -- point out that he must still have some standard against which to measure the efficacy of his choices. If you were totally alone, and you spent your time destroying resources, that would be uneconomical -- and immoral.

The reason for the "Crusoe test" is to remind us that we are, indeed, all alone in the world.

Post 12

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 3:35am

Thanks for the summary, Joseph. I clicked the Check for it. Allow me to make one entry in the ledger for subjective values. You wrote:

Imagine if there are two women you could date. They seem to be equal in every way, except that one is incredibly beautiful while the other is somewhat plain. In this situation, you'd go for the beautiful one.

Actually, my mother suggested a different way to look at the problem and it has served me well over the years. Then, watching Ron Howard's Beautiful Mind, I saw the theorem proved. Beautiful woman (pretty girls, to a 10th grader) get all the attention. Not only do I have to compete harder to get attention myself, I have to lavish a higher level of attention on her. Furthermore -- more important, here for me -- pretty girls (beautiful women to a 55-year old) never have to try hard themselves to get attention and as a consequence -- most important -- all that attention they get makes them outwardly focused on other people.

However, the less pretty -- plain; ugly; call it what you want -- tend to appreciate attention more, require less investment. Best of all, lacking all that distracting attention from others, they tend to have deeper personalities. They read more; they think more.

We have different values, apparently. Perhaps we only instantiate the same values differently.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/06, 3:39am)

Post 13

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 5:25am

Marotta says: -- Beautiful woman (pretty girls, to a 10th grader) get all the attention. Not only do I have to compete harder to get attention myself, I have to lavish a higher level of attention on her. Furthermore -- more important, here for me -- pretty girls (beautiful women to a 55-year old) never have to try hard themselves to get attention and as a consequence -- most important -- all that attention they get makes them outwardly focused on other people. However, the less pretty -- plain; ugly; call it what you want -- tend to appreciate attention more, require less investment. Best of all, lacking all that distracting attention from others, they tend to have deeper personalities. They read more; they think more.

Your statement is a flat out stereotype.

By saying that plain girls are 'deeper', 'read more' and 'think more' you make a reverse inference about pretty girls that is vicious. I have never seen any empirical data that supports the idea that pretty girls tend to be less 'deep' or 'read less' or 'think less' than plain girls (if some exist, please point me in that direction). Also, as to the 'distraction of attention' - while it cannot be denied that pretty girls will get a higher volume of 'looks', I have often had them comment to me that less attractive girls get far more actual interaction with other people beyond being stared at. In this case a pretty girls attractiveness acts to intimidate the majority of males from ever approaching them. Lastly, the idea that being physically attractive will make a girl more "outwardly focused on other people", is nonsense. Physical attractiveness (like natural athletic ability) often makes a person more self-assured and less concerned with the judgment of 'other people'. It is far more likely that persons that consider themselves less than attractive would be far more focused on other people (their reactions, judgments, acceptance, ect...).

George

Post 14

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 6:41am

Joe wrote:

Luther argues the basic vice is initiation force. That unfortunately takes a interpersonal view of morality. Given the virtues, the vices should be things like "irrationality, laziness, dependence, humility, hypocrisy, dishonesty, and unjust". In other words, there's plenty of immoral habits even when you're respectful of other people's rights.

Agreed. I just wanted to explain the issue of violating others' rights in the context of the supreme values. Your deeper intrapersonal statement of morals stands correct.

Luke Setzer

Post 15

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 11:49am

The distinction between interpersonal and intrapersonal certainly doesn't look like Objectivism to me. In fact, an approach to ethics based on whether another person is involved seems to have some parallels to social metaphysics (i.e., reality depends on what other people think).

As others have already pointed out, Objectivism holds that morality is what guides men's actions. Robinson Crusoe needs a guide to his actions in order to survive. To the extent he makes shelter, learns to fish, builds a fire, etc. he is acting morally. If he sits around in the sand waiting for Friday to show up and tell him what to do he is acting immorally.

I think a more useful distinction than interpersonal and intrapersonal would be a distinction between matters of morality and matters of preference. The most rigid moralist might say that almost nothing is a matter of preference and that everything you do has moral implications. Others with more of a "live and let live" approach would say that some things (e.g., sexual preference) are matters of preference and not morality.

Post 16

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 5:54pm

Well it looks like I'm wrong but to my credit I do see that there is right and wrong when your alone but what I don't see is how a person can commit wrong when thery are alone. Please can someone tell me an immoral act I can possiably commit when there is no one else to interact with?

Post 17

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:01pm

Clarence,

A person can act immorally alone on a desert island through irrationality, counter-productivity and false pride -- with the root vice being irrationality. The isolation means that laws of nature, not other people, make him pay the price for his vice through diminishment of his long-range well-being. Others in this thread have already given numerous examples of how this can happen.

While he may fail to judge himself as immoral, the rest of us can do so rightly in accordance with these objective standards.

Luke Setzer

Post 18

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 7:28am

Clarence,

To concretize what Luther is saying, if a guy on a desert island knows that he needs to build shelter and bust open some coconuts if he is to survive/flourish, and if instead he chooses to frolic around with the sea turtles until he finds himself cold and hungry, then he has acted immorally.

Jordan

Post 19

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 6:50pm