I must admit I would have never expected someone to argue with me that doing the right thing is always the right thing to do. It never goes out of style. Sure, it can be harder at times than going along with the consensus but standing on principles always seemed to me the higher calling in life. As a kid I was called “goody two shoes” for this position.
What troubles me, according to modern thought, is that it now appears right and wrong are subjective and therefore depend upon personal beliefs and cultural norms. Could this explain why many politicians will privately admit that cheating to achieve their political goals is appropriate.
The branch of philosophy called ethics addresses this question. Let’s focus on just one: are moral truths objective or subjective? In other words, are moral truths (like “don’t cheat” and “don’t steal”) objectively true and thus true independently of what our society says? Or are they subjective and thus relative to what our society says?
Some recent research indicates that about 95% of students answered that moral truths are subjective. One might be tempted to think that this is a generational phenomenon: perhaps a millennial thing, but it is much more widespread.
Another possibility of thinking that morality is subjective could be rooted in some sort of intellectual humility. Perhaps people understand those who disagree morally need to be listened to and given intellectual room so that there is no tone of superiority by those with whom they disagree.
However, one can argue that morality is purely logical, using the argument from common sense. If morality is subjective (and thus relative to society), then there is really nothing wrong with slavery. But slavery is wrong. Therefore, it follows by logic alone that morality is not subjective. This argument is short, but powerful. Intellectuals will now argue with me that you really need to define slavery, because many modern business models have elements of slavery in their design.
Secondly, one can use the argument from disagreement. Consider a simple example of subjectivity: taste. I think vanilla is better than chocolate. Chocolate is alright, but clearly not as good as vanilla! But ask yourself this: if we were to have an argument about which is better (chocolate or vanilla), would we really be disagreeing about an objective fact in the world? No. Clearly not. That’s because this whole dispute boils down to a matter of taste. And taste is subjective.
So here’s the argument. Analogously, if morality is subjective, then no two people could ever really disagree about a particular moral issue. But that’s ridiculous. Just turn on the news for a few seconds, and you’ll see people clearly disagreeing about moral issues! Therefore, it follows by logic alone that morality is not subjective. To suppose that morality is subjective flies in the face of common sense and leads to the totally implausible conclusion that we can never really morally disagree with one another.
Morality is objective. It is independent of us and independent of what society says. Therefore, and consequentially, doing the right thing should never go out of style! Plus, if we believe AI is going to be the basis of future decisions, how can we expect the best for society if we can’t agree now on what is right?
To answer the question posed in the title of this blog, clearly and sadly, yes.