Rules Of The Game

Religion, which should most distinguish us from the beasts, and ought most particularly elevate us, as rational creatures, above brutes, is that wherein men often appear most irrational, and more senseless than beasts.

- John Locke

There are, to me, few statements that are more true and self-evident than the above. But, in order to reach the core of many political problems we currently face, replace “religion” with “morality”. Specifically, “subjective morality”. To be sure, nearly all morality is subjective. As a Christian, I live my personal life by a subjective code of morality. I realize that countless Christians would take serious issue with my claim that Judeo-Christian ethics are subjective in nature – but they are. True, Judeo-Christian ethics may be viewed as objective by the followers of affected religions, but that is only because those followers hold their religious texts to be true. Yes, if the Christian God is real, and if The Bible is His Word, then Judeo-Christian ethics are an objective moral code.  But Christians, such as myself, have to accept their beliefs on faith – our beliefs cannot be objectively proven. Thus, much to the certain chagrin of some of our religious readers, it is beyond contestation that religious codes of morality are inherently subjective. Of course, subjective morality is not the sole property of the religious. Atheistic socialism is also a form of subjective morality. There is no rational, provable, objective basis dictating that self-sacrifice and altruism are moral.

The only truly objective morality is one that which is based on man’s nature (i.e. the observable facts of his existence). Such a morality, of course, is very simple. It defines “good” as that which furthers man’s survival and “evil” as that which threatens his survival. I will not attempt to delve in depth into objective morality. I will instead refer my readers to Ayn Rand’s writings on Objectivism. Though please note that I by no means endorse the entirety of Objectivist philosophy. I do however, find Rand’s analysis of her own three types of morality quite useful. They are Objective Morality, Subjective Morality, and Intrinsic Morality.

There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.

There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.

[Objectivism], in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

As a personal disclaimer to all of the above, let me be clear that I find Rand’s thinking on religion (and subjective morality in general) to be highly flawed. However, that is not the central point of this post. Regardless of our use of objective morality in our personal lives, it is absolutely essential that objective morality be the only type adopted by a government. Subjective morality, as the name implies, cannot be proven or logically defended. Thus, any attempt to create a system of governance based on subjective morality will eventually lead to a pure democracy (i.e. mob rule). Laws based on objective morality are the only laws that can be enforced. I, as a Christian, believe Communion to be a moral necessity – does my firm belief give me the right to force my neighbor, at gunpoint, to eat wafers and drink sacramental wine? Of course not. How then can my neighbor’s belief in altruism justify the government forcibly seizing my property (through taxation) to provide foreign aid to an impoverished nation? It cannot. No matter how moral a given action may seem, if it is not objectively moral, it has no place in the laws of a just society.