EMBRACE WHO YOU ARE! LIVE YOUR BEST POSSIBLE LIFE! CONQUER YOUR PERCEIVED WORLD!

THE MYTH OF MORAL OBJECTIVITY

on


People talk about morality like it’s gravity—universal, unchanging, beyond dispute. They want the comfort of a rulebook written into the cosmos, some invisible judge whispering what’s right and wrong into their bones. But gravity doesn’t change its mind about who’s allowed to fall. Morality does.

Every century rewrites its commandments. The ancient Greeks exposed infants to die, medieval Christians burned heretics, and modern democracies now call both atrocities. If morality were truly objective, it wouldn’t flip like fashion. It would stay constant, untouched by time or tribe. Instead, every “absolute” turns out to be an opinion enforced by power. God’s will, the law, tradition—it’s all the same mask over the same face: human preference pretending to be universal truth.

Where Morality Actually Comes From

Strip away the divine packaging and you find something far more interesting. Morality didn’t descend from the sky; it evolved from the ground up. Long before scripture, early humans figured out that empathy, cooperation, and fairness kept the tribe alive. “Good” was whatever reduced bloodshed and kept the fires burning. “Evil” was whatever tore the tribe apart.

Evolution doesn’t hand down commandments—it wires survival strategies into our instincts. We learned to care, to share, to punish cheaters, because those behaviors worked. Morality isn’t a cosmic law; it’s an adaptive toolkit. It changes when we change.

That’s why our moral horizon keeps widening. Once, compassion stopped at the family. Then at the village. Now it crosses oceans. Every step forward is a product of empathy expanding beyond its original survival radius. The code evolves because we do.

The Comfort of Certainty

Humans hate uncertainty. A moral gray area is scarier than the dark. That’s why so many cling to objective morality—it’s simple. “God said so” saves you from having to think. You can outsource the hard part to the heavens and sleep at night.

But that comfort is a lie. Objective morality isn’t about truth; it’s about control. Once you convince people that your moral rules are divine, you can justify anything—from crusades to witch trials to “just following orders.”

Look at history: every massacre blessed by religion, every tyranny cloaked in righteousness, every atrocity excused with “It’s God’s will.” That’s what “objective” morality gives you—absolution without accountability.

The Weight of Freedom

Subjective morality doesn’t let you hide behind commandments. It says, You decide. You weigh the harm. You own the fallout. That’s terrifying to people who’d rather kneel than think. But it’s also the only path to integrity.

When you remove divine oversight, you don’t lose morality—you inherit it. Suddenly the question isn’t “What does God want?” but “What kind of world am I creating with my choices?” That’s sovereignty, not sin.

Freedom isn’t license; it’s responsibility. Theists call that pride. I call it adulthood.

Progress Through Rebellion

Every step humanity has taken toward decency came from breaking someone’s “objective” rule. Slavery ended when people stopped accepting scripture as moral authority. Women’s rights advanced when societies ignored verses telling them to stay silent. Gay rights, civil rights, human rights—all born from people saying, “Maybe your eternal truths were just bad ideas.”

Objective morality can’t evolve. Subjective morality must. That’s why one fossilizes civilizations and the other saves them.

The Divine Dilemma

If things are good only because God commands them, then morality is arbitrary—a divine mood swing. But if God commands them because they’re good, then goodness exists independently of Him, making Him unnecessary. Either way, objective morality collapses under its own logic.

And even if you still cling to it, interpretation drags you back into the mud. Every religion claims objective truth, yet their moral codes contradict each other. Which god gets the final word? Which translation of which scroll wins? You’re right back where you started: people deciding for themselves what the “objective” law really means.

The Human Reality

Morality isn’t carved in the stars; it’s scratched into the dirt by nervous apes trying to coexist. You can trace it in our literature, our laws, our neurons. It expands with knowledge, empathy, and contact—not revelation. We didn’t need a god to tell us torture was wrong—we needed enough imagination to feel the other person’s pain.

Objective morality can’t explain that kind of growth. Subjective morality can, because it expects evolution. It accepts that right and wrong are living concepts, shaped by context and consequence. That’s not relativism—it’s realism.

The Logical Autopsy

If morality were truly objective, it would never change. It does.
If morality were handed down by a divine source, all cultures would agree. They don’t.
If morality were independent of human minds, it wouldn’t evolve with human progress. It does.

What we actually observe fits one model only: morality is a human creation that adapts with us. Objective morality isn’t just unproven—it’s unnecessary.

The Real Test

“Without objective morality, anything goes!” That’s the last refuge of moral cowardice. Anything doesn’t go. Actions have consequences. Societies that allow unchecked harm destroy themselves. The feedback loop of empathy, pain, and retaliation polices morality better than any deity ever has.

Subjectivity doesn’t mean chaos—it means choice with consequence. It demands awareness instead of obedience. It says you can’t hide behind scripture or culture; you have to own the echo of every act.

The Sovereign Human

Morality isn’t a leash from heaven—it’s a mirror you have to face every damn day. There’s no cosmic referee keeping score. You write your code by how you live, by the harm you prevent, by the honesty you uphold when no one’s watching.

That’s the real Satanic act: to claim ownership of your moral self, unshackled from divine babysitting. It’s not rebellion for its own sake—it’s authorship.

Objective morality offers comfort without clarity.
Subjective morality offers freedom with accountability.
Only one makes you sovereign.

So stop parroting commandments carved by strangers. Carve your own with how you live.
You don’t need heaven to tell you what’s right—you just need the guts to take responsibility for it.

Embrace who you are. Live your best possible life. Conquer your perceived world.

Appendix: The Syllogistic Framework

1. The Objective Mirage

  • If morality were objective, it would be universal and unchanging.

  • Moral codes vary across history and culture.

  • ∴ Morality is not objective. (Modus tollens — deductively valid.)

2. Evolutionary Origin

  • Traits enhancing cooperation and survival evolve.

  • Moral behaviors enhance cooperation and survival.

  • ∴ Moral behaviors likely evolved via natural selection. (Inductively strong.)

3. Authority & Accountability

  • Objective morality places authority outside the self.

  • External authority allows moral deferral.

  • ∴ Objective morality erodes accountability. (Deductively valid.)

4. Empirical Consistency

  • If morality were objective, codes would converge.

  • They don’t.

  • ∴ Objective morality lacks evidence. (Inductively strong.)

5. The Euthyphro Dilemma

  • If good = God’s command, morality is arbitrary.

  • If God commands good because it’s good, morality precedes God.

  • ∴ Divine-command morality self-contradicts. (Deductively valid.)

6. Functionality of Subjectivity

  • Societies thrive on empathy and consequence ethics.

  • Dogma stagnates progress.

  • ∴ Subjectivity sustains moral adaptation. (Inductively strong.)

7. Progress & Rebellion

  • Progress demands questioning codes.

  • Objective morality forbids questioning.

  • ∴ Progress contradicts objectivity. (Deductively valid.)

8. Meta-Synthesis

  • All evidence ties morality to human cognition.

  • No evidence proves independence from human minds.

  • ∴ Morality originates from human constructs. (Deductively valid.)

9. Survival Feedback Loop

  • Harmful societies collapse; cooperative ones endure.

  • ∴ Subjective morality self-regulates through consequence. (Inductively strong.)

10. Final Resolution

  • Objective morality requires a provable divine lawgiver.

  • None demonstrated.

  • ∴ Objective morality fails as philosophy; subjectivity remains coherent. (Deductively valid.)

Further Reading — Moral Autonomy & The Human Code

I. Classical Foundations

  1. Plato – Euthyphro – The origin of the divine-command paradox.

  2. Aristotle – Nicomachean Ethics – Virtue as habit, not decree.

  3. Epicurus – Letter to Menoeceus – Morality through peace, not fear.

II. Enlightenment & Empirical Thought

  1. David Hume – An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals

  2. Immanuel Kant – Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

  3. John Stuart Mill – Utilitarianism

  4. Friedrich Nietzsche – On the Genealogy of Morals

III. Evolutionary & Scientific Context

  1. Charles Darwin – The Descent of Man

  2. Frans de Waal – Primates and Philosophers

  3. Michael Ruse – Taking Darwin Seriously

  4. Daniel Dennett – Breaking the Spell

  5. Richard Dawkins – The Selfish Gene

IV. Modern Humanist & Secular Ethics

  1. Peter Singer – Practical Ethics

  2. Sam Harris – The Moral Landscape

  3. A. C. Grayling – The Good Book: A Humanist Bible

V. Satanic & Left-Hand Path Literature

  1. Anton Szandor LaVey – The Satanic Bible

  2. Peter H. Gilmore – The Satanic Scriptures

  3. Stephen Flowers – Lords of the Left-Hand Path

VI. Counterpoints & Classical Challenges

  1. C. S. Lewis – The Abolition of Man

  2. Alasdair MacIntyre – After Virtue

  3. Jordan B. Peterson – Maps of Meaning

VII. Online & Open Access References

  1. Enke, B. (2017). Kinship, Cooperation, and the Evolution of Moral Systems. NBER Working Paper No. W23499

  2. Akdeniz, A., et al. (2021). The evolution of morality and the role of commitment. Evolutionary Human Sciences

  3. Pölzler, T. (2019). Empirical research on folk moral objectivism. PMC Article

  4. Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. PNAS / PMC

  5. Goodwin, G. P. (2012). Why are some moral beliefs perceived to be more objective than others? ScienceDirect

  6. Smith, T. (2008). Distinguishing objective from intrinsic value. Social Philosophy & Policy

  7. Carrier, R. (2025). Objective Moral Facts Exist in All Possible Universes. MDPI Religions

  8. Isern-Mas, C. (2022). A second-personal approach to the evolution of morality. Biological Theory

  9. Salahshour, M. (2022). Interaction between games give rise to the evolution of moral norms of cooperation. PLOS Computational Biology

  10. Freeman III, G. C. (1987). Liberalism and the Objectivity of Ethics. LSU Law Review


Subjective vs. Objective Morality: The Aristotelian Breakdown

Section I – Defining the Battlefield Premise 1: Objective morality claims moral truths exist independently of human perception or culture. Premise 2: Subjective morality claims moral truths arise from human minds, experiences, and social evolution. Premise 3: For morality to be objective, it must be universal, unchanging, and discoverable independent of personal or cultural influence. Premise 4: For morality to be subjective, it must vary according to context, empathy, and consequence, reflecting human adaptability. Conclusion 1: If moral codes differ significantly across time and cultures, morality is more consistent with subjectivity than objectivity. Section II – Testing the Objective Claim Premise 5: An objective moral law would remain constant regardless of time, geography, or belief. Premise 6: Moral norms have varied radically across history (e.g., slavery, child sacrifice, gender equality, capital punishment). Premise 7: No known moral value has remained universally accepted and unchanging across all societies. Premise 8: What is often claimed as “objective morality” (e.g., divine command) depends on human interpretation of religious texts. Conclusion 2: Objective morality fails its own standard of universality; it depends on human context and interpretation, making it effectively subjective in practice. Section III – The Evolutionary Argument for Subjectivity Premise 9: Human moral intuition evolved as a survival mechanism to enable social cohesion within groups. Premise 10: Behaviors labeled as “moral” (cooperation, empathy, fairness) directly enhance group survival and individual well-being. Premise 11: Evolutionary origins of morality imply adaptive flexibility, not fixed cosmic laws. Premise 12: If morality evolves with environment and circumstance, its foundation lies in human cognition, not external decree. Conclusion 3: Morality is best explained as a subjective, adaptive construct emerging from human social and biological evolution. Section IV – The Psychological Appeal of Objectivity Premise 13: Humans experience discomfort in moral ambiguity. Premise 14: Belief in objective morality reduces uncertainty by providing perceived absolute guidance. Premise 15: Authority-based systems exploit this comfort to maintain control and conformity (religious or political). Premise 16: Comfort does not validate truth; psychological need is not evidence of metaphysical reality. Conclusion 4: The appeal of objective morality lies in emotional security, not logical or empirical justification. Section V – Sovereignty and Accountability Premise 17: If morality is subjective, individuals bear full responsibility for their moral choices. Premise 18: If morality is objective and divinely authored, individuals can claim obedience rather than accountability. Premise 19: History demonstrates that appeals to “objective” divine morality have justified atrocities (crusades, inquisitions, slavery). Premise 20: Moral progress (e.g., abolition, human rights, gender equality) has historically required questioning “objective” religious codes. Conclusion 5: Subjective morality aligns with accountability and human progress; objective morality enables moral outsourcing and stagnation. Section VI – The Final Logical Resolution Premise 21: Two systems of morality cannot both be true if their foundations are incompatible (divine decree vs. human construct). Premise 22: Evidence shows morality changes with human understanding, not divine revelation. Premise 23: No empirical evidence supports the existence of a universal moral law independent of human minds. Conclusion 6 (Major): Therefore, morality is subjective—an emergent property of human consciousness and social evolution, not an external or divine constant. Section VII – The Grumps Addendum (Philosophical Consequence) Premise 24: To accept subjective morality is to accept autonomy over obedience. Premise 25: Autonomy demands self-examination and conscious choice, even when uncomfortable. Premise 26: Moral sovereignty means acknowledging that “right” and “wrong” are human inventions—tools to navigate coexistence, not truths inscribed in the cosmos. Conclusion 7 (Grumps’ Verdict): Rejecting objective morality isn’t nihilism; it’s adulthood. It means you think, not kneel. You choose, not parrot. You bear the weight of your decisions, not hide behind commandments. Meta-Conclusion Therefore: Objective morality offers comfort without clarity. Subjective morality offers freedom with responsibility. Only one of those builds a sovereign human being.


Comments

Post a Comment