Clarification on the subjective/objective dichotomy when talking about morality

There are two different meanings to the objective/subjective dichotomy that sometimes get confused.

One meaning has to do with whether you are being influenced by bias or not. To be objective, in this context, is to come to your conclusions free from prejudice or bias. To be subjective is to allow your feelings, prejudices, and biases to influence your conclusion.

But when it comes to morality, that's not what people mean by the subjective/objective dichotomy. What they mean, rather, is what kind of statements moral claims are. In this context, an objective claim is a claim about an object, and a subjective claim is a claim about the subject. There reason for the confusion is that most often subjective claims are stated as if they were objective claims. Take these two claims for example:

• The earth is a cube.
• Mint chocolate chip ice cream tastes great.

The first claim is about the earth. It's an objective claim. I used this example to illustrate the fact that "objective" doesn't mean "true." A claim can be objective and false. What makes it objective is that it's about the object, and not the subject making the claim.

The second claim appears to be objective because it appears to be about mint chocolate chip ice cream. But in reality, it's a subjective claim because it's actually a statement about the tastes and preferences of the subject making the claim. To say that ice cream tastes good is just to say that you like the way ice cream tastes.

One way to tell whether a statement is objective or subjective in this second sense is to ask whether the statement could be false or whether it makes sense to argue with somebody about it. Regardless of what anybody believe, the earth has a particular shape. If you say it's a cube, but it's a sphere, then you're wrong.

But whether ice cream tastes good depends entirely on whether you like it or not. If you say ice cream tastes good because you like it, then you can't be wrong, and it doesn't make any sense for anybody to argue with you about it. Ice cream could taste good to one person but not to another. However, if the earth is a sphere, then it would be a sphere regardless of what anybody thought.

That's why the first statement is an objective claim, and the second is a subjective claim.

So now consider this statement:

• It is wrong to commit adultery.

The debate between moral objectivism and subjectivism is over the meaning of statements like this. What does this statement refer to? If it refers to the act of adultery itself, then it's an objective statement. If it refers to your preferences, values, etc. (i.e. how you feel about rape), then it's subjective.

If one could be mistaken in their moral point of view, then there is an objective truth about morality. But if morality is merely subjective, then any moral point of view could be true for one person and not for another.

The debate isn't merely about what we mean by our moral statements. It's also over realism vs. non-realism. Realism is the view that some objective moral statements are in fact true. Under subjectivism, no objective moral statements are true, so subjectivism is a kind of moral non-realism.

There is a difference between reality on the one hand and beliefs about reality on the other hand. How you came to your beliefs may entail that your beliefs are subjective under the first meaning I explained above, but there could still be an objective truth to what it is you believe. For example, you may believe your son is innocent of being a bully because of your bias towards your son, in which case your belief is subjective in the first sense. But whether your son is or isn't a bully is part of objective reality. He either is or he isn't.

There are some truths that we know purely by introspection. You can just think about it and come to the realization that the interior angles of any triangle will add up to 180º. That's an objective truth you arrived at by turning your gaze inward.

Morality differs from geometry, though. The reason we're able to know geometrical truths with certainty is because we grasp their necessity. Just by reflecting on it, we can figure out that it's impossible for things to be otherwise. But morality isn't like that. Moral truths aren't necessary truths like math, geometry, and logic.

However, there are several truths we can only know through introspection that aren't necessary truths. Since these aren't necessary truths, it's possible that we could be wrong about them. However, that mere possibility isn't sufficient grounds for doubting them. In fact, it's unreasonable to doubt them, and people who do doubt them find it impossible to live consistently with those doubts.

One example of this knowledge is our knowledge of the past. Strictly speaking, it's possible that we popped into existence five minutes ago, complete with false memories. It's impossible to disprove that. Yet it's far more reasonable to affirm the reality of the past than to deny it.

Another example is the external world. It's possible we're plugged into the matrix, or we're just minds, or just brains being stimulated in such a way as to produce false sensory perceptions. Since all perception happens in the mind, and we can't step outside of our minds, it's possible that perception is only in the mind. But that doesn't make it reasonable to doubt the existence of the world external to our minds.

And there are several other examples I could give you. Well, morality is similar to these kinds of items of knowledge. Morality has several things in common with them.

• None of these things can be proved.
• Every mentally healthy person apprehends these things as if they were true and real.
• It's prima facie unreasonable to deny these things.
• It's possible that each of these things is false.

Almost any argument you can give against objective morality could just as well apply to any of these other things. For example, people sometimes disagree about morality, which shows that maybe we're not perceiving anything real after all. But people also remember things differently, but that's no reason to deny the existence of the past. The fact that you can be mistaken about morality is no more reason to doubt the existence of morality than the fact that people dream and have hallucinations is a reason to doubt the existence of the external world.