Why Live a Moral Life in a Relative World?

“That’s your truth,” “You do you,” “Don’t tell me how to live MY life,” “Everything is relative anyway…”

We hear stuff like this all the time and it can make us wonder ‘is there really an objective morality, or are we just wasting our time thinking about it?’. These are the questions philosophers have addressed for centuries, and today I’d like to look at some of them and suggest the alternative view to moral relativism, that is objective morality. (Meaning, a belief that morals are concrete and true for everyone, and don’t change for each differing person or feeling).

So today’s blog is going to be a little bit different but, here’s my ultra-brief intro into the study of morality!

1- Normative versus Meta-ethical thinking

If your brain just went into an alarm of boredom, then please come back, it’s not as dry as it seems. Basically in moral philosophy there are two branches of thought. One (normative) says there is an objective truth that we can know. The second branch, meta-ethical thinking, says we just don’t know.

A lot of people believe meta-ethical thinking is the best way to avoid criticism about ‘proving’ morals are objective. But think about how many things we believe in that aren’t 100% proven pure fact. Take science for example. ‘Objective results’ found through a fallible (or uncertain, not entirely trustworthy) method, are therefore open to criticism and error. Placing some faith in the first principles of things is necessary if we want to believe anything at all.

2. What is relativism?

Now here are some staple relativist philosophies:

Nihilism: there is no meaning

Nonfactualism: No objective morals; merely preferences, what people agree on, or expressions of emotions.

Relativism: There is no objective morality, it merely applies subjectively to each culture, society or point in time.

I don’t know about you but I believe people are made for so much MORE than these these somewhat bleak and fragile views. We are created with a life, with truth, with meaning and with a PURPOSE. Yes, this requires a little bit of faith in concepts that aren’t always 100% derivable from ‘pure fact’ but half of life, and relativist philosophies require faith in first beliefs.

2- Types of Normative ethical theories

Assuming we’ve accepted that normative ethical theories exist and we CAN know facts about morality, let’s keep going. Welcome to level two. Pick your weapon. The top ones are deontological, consequentialism, teleology or natural law theories of morality.

*record scratch rewind*

Hang on. You told me this blog was talking about having objective morals. Why the flip are you showing me multiple theories of morality? Good question. My answer is, since some faith in a first principle is necessary, this allows potential for error, resulting in heaps of different kinds of theories for objective morality. This doesn’t mean there isn’t one objective theory that we can know, but rather means we need to look at them all to discover the one that God has outlined, and the limitations it holds against the other views.

SO, let’s take a quick glance at these normative theories. Welcome to my tree of knowledge, lets look at some branches, but no twigs because we don’t have time for specifics.

DEONTOLOGICAL theories believe that the moral thing to do can be measured by the rightness or wrongness of an action, based on a series of certain rules as to what that rightness of wrongness of an action looks like. i.e lying is bad

CONSEQUENTIALISM believes that in every circumstance it is always right to maximise the greatest goodness of all and avoid the greatest evil. For example- it is right to kill one person if it saves 10 people.

TELEOLOGY views morality where everything has a purpose. An action is morally good if it leads them closer to that purpose

NATURAL LAW theory states that everyone has natural reason, which tells us what is good, and how to pursue that good.

Ok, lemme tell you about Ari.

3- Mr. Aristotle

The Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (who by the way was a pagan) believed that every living thing has a specific end goal which they spend their life trying to achieve: an acorn would strive to be a mighty oak. A puppy would strive to be a formed and strong dog. And a human being would strive to perfect himself by being in a state of eudemonia. Eudomonia meaning being happy, as a flourishing human being. So happiness was considered the perfection and end goal of humanity.

Seems reasonable yeah? Most people spend their lives trying to be happy, whether through work, friends, family or excessive amounts of coffee. But what Aristotle really wanted to draw out in his philosophy of ethics and eudomonia was this idea of a lasting and fulfilling happiness (as an ultimate end, not a temporary one). So in reality coffee is only a short term surge of happiness which disappears the second you finish your last sip. Similarly money stops making us happy when we run out (and stops our Uber Eats deliveries …). Family and friends can even change and be unreliable, which means that our ultimate happiness is not dependent upon variables relationships. Our ultimate happiness must be connected with our selves.

Ooh I just mentioned the word self here. My happiness is completely different to others’ happiness, right? To claim this proves objective morality, i.e that morals are timeless truths that don’t change with each new person or feeling, is a tad far-fetched and low key communist. Fair. Of course our happiness is uniquely different on a subjective level. I like red. You like blue. I like chocolate. You like lollies. I like the Parks and Rec, but you don’t (sad react). We are all beautifully unique. But on a substantial level our happiness as human beings is the same by the fact that we are the same species that share an ultimate end of goodness.

Remember that goofy word I mentioned that sounds like a sketchy phone company? Well it’s called your telos and it’s the key to understanding how the objective and ultimate end of humanity and their happiness goes above and beyond your specific desire for ice cream and taps into understanding fundamental goodness. Your telos is your fulfillment as your species. So if acorns want to be trees, and they have all the ingredients in their seeds to get there, then what do humans use to reach their ultimate end of a holistic happiness, and what does this happiness even look like?

Well what is the one distinctive feature all humans have that separates us from plants and animals? Our thoughts and our choices! The ability to to evaluate. Our reason and will, are humanity’s golden features. It’s what allows us to make good choices and not act on pure instinct. It’s the ability to know we shouldn’t eat 67 hamburgers despite our appetite longing for it. It’s our ability to choose to not punch someone in the face despite being annoyed at them for putting sugar syrup in your iced latte. It’s the ability to control our brute and animalistic nature. A lion would eat you if you took their food. A bee would sting you if you scared them (unless you like jazz). They don’t have reason. They can’t think. Humanity’s crowning ability is the ability to know what’s good.

Aristotle claimed that the way to harness our reason in good habits was to cultivate virtuous behavior through this funky word, phronesis. (fro-knee-siss). Sounding like a rip off brand for paracetamol, this word means a practical wisdom that is gained through both knowing what’s good and being equipped to act that way. Aristotle claims this practical wisdom helps us achieve virtue, which leads us to being happy. Why? Because the fulfillment of this happiness is ingrained in our nature, like the acorn seed, having all that it needs within their nature to become a mighty oak tree. For humans, our capacity to be happy is to use our reason to follow virtuous behaviours towards natural goodness, and become a flourishing, happy human. This behavior towards the good, is objective morality, as it is for all people, to help them reach their ultimate and universal end, of becoming rational and happy. The actions of morality are not isolated as individual actions, but are all directed towards the growth towards this ultimate end. *exhales*

Now, let’s look at Aquinas.

4- This guy Aquinas (tommy aqua)

A Dominican monk and somewhat king of philosophy Thomas Aquinas wrote some extensive works on the nature of man, and his relation to the supreme being that is God. Aquinas saw that naturally there were 7 things that humans sought after. Basically, humans seem to like to survive, make babies, educate people, look for a greater existence of a supreme being, socialize, not annoy people gravely, and are curious about meaning.

Since humans tend to seek these things, Aquinas suggests it is natural to reason that they are good things. He then suggests the good things should have moral laws attached to them. Life, should be protected, and murder prohibited. From this more laws can be derived, since life is good, life must be cherished, people should be fed, their freedom should be protected etc.

However, a lot of people disagree with this and claim that just because something is good, it doesn’t mean that everyone should want it, or that they all HAVE to follow it.

Modern philosophy no longer views the natural world and the goodness found in ultimate ends and the sense perception of reason to be a valid justification for objective morality. They reject the idea that things have inherent goodness that they pursue in their life and that this is good and must be protected within self but also within others.

But I ask you. If you don’t believe in things that are naturally good. Then what do you believe in? What is worth believing in? All philosophies require a belief in a first premise that can always be questioned further and further back, but eventually it must begin with believing in SOMETHING. Just as Pope John Paul II states: “Faith and Reason are like two wings of the human spirit by which is soars to the truth.” So why not believe that there is an objective inherent goodness that all humans can attain through virtue, just like with the acorns?

So this is Aquinas’ theory of Natural Law and how we identify the good. Like Aristotle, Aquinas believes that virtues are good habits to help us pursue the natural goods in life and lead us toward our ultimate end, which is happiness. This is why actions matter, this is why actions are moral. And this is why morals are timeless concrete truths that stay the same for everyone, as they are linked to our fundamental goodness. Because they either lead us towards, or distract us from our ultimate end and holistic happiness. They either lead us towards our natural progress of becoming a rational and happy human, or detract us from this natural course, and steer us from our ultimate end. This, according to both Aristotle and Aquinas, is why we need virtue.

Except unlike Aristotle, Aquinas believed that this ultimate end goal of happiness was actually beyond this world. He believed our telos, our ultimate happiness, our inherent purpose and goodness that will lead us beyond Eudomonia (being happy happy), was being in union with God’s love in heaven. That is our ultimate goal. And that is why virtue is good, because it helps us walk the journey towards heaven.

And so there you have it. I invite you to look beyond relativism. I want you to know that there is so much truth, and reasonable logic behind objective morality. This blog has been the shortest snippet into the writings on morality so I encourage you to read! Keep learning, keep discussing, keep asking the big questions. If you’re keen there are a few links to some groovy articles and videos that I think are amazing.

And now I want to leave you with some quotes from Ven. Fulton Sheen and Jesus Christ our Lord, who was the ultimate moral example, and will help us live out this journey with humility.

“Freedom does not mean that right to do whatever we please, but rather to do as we ought. The right to do whatever we please reduces freedom to a physical power and forgets that freedom is a moral power.”

Ven. Rev. Fulton Sheen

"Master, which is the greatest commandment of the Law?' .Jesus said to him, 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second resembles it: You must love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments hang the whole Law, and the Prophets too.'"
Matthew, 22: 36-40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_UfYY7aWKo if you’re a viewer

https://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-moral/ if you’re a reader

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aITPi3kUoLw viewer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNxnGQDT0As viewer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1IZFZgHWj4 viewer

https://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-eth/ reader

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2001.htm HEAVY reader

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/ reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrvtOWEXDIQ viewer

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ if you’re a reader

And to learn about the reasoning behind relativism and other nonfactualism philosophies: