In the center of a room is a narrow pedestal, upon which rests a very fragile, but beautifully crafted vase. On one side of this pedestal is a man dressed all in white. On the other side is a man dressed all in black. Suddenly a gust of wind catches the vase. Both men see the vase tip over and, using their experiences as a basis for comparison, can predict that the vase will fall from the pedestal and will almost certainly shatter when it hits the floor. Upon coming to this rational conclusion the man in black does absolutely nothing but watch it fall. The man in the white quickly reaches out and rights the vase before it can fall. What does this simple series of events tell us about the two men and how they think? More importantly, what do we use as a basis for these assumptions? We must evaluate their actions with the understanding that these actions were the result of desires. A common error is to think that reason led to action, but this line of thought is inherently flawed as it is based on incorrect assumptions. In order for reason to motivate action there must be a clearly defined “correct” response to a situation. This would requite the existence of objective morals. As they do not exist, reason is incapable to motivating desires and actions.

Each man in the example has exhibited two forms of thinking; reason and desire. This situation is simple so that we can accurately predict that both men had the capacity to reason the outcome. It should be pointed out that a person’s experiences contribute greatly both to their personality and ability to reason. As such they often have similarities that can be mistaken as mutual influence. This is an incorrect assumption, however, as the similarities stem from a common base, not a connection between them. To say otherwise would be to claim that our objective perception of the world around us is somehow twisted by our subjective opinions, that colors and shapes might appear differently depending on whether we are compassionate or not, and so forth. This obviously is not the case. Our ability to reason is nothing but a tool we use to see the world around us and attempt to discover what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. We come to many conclusions based on those conclusions, but not a single one suggests a course of action to us. Many people, especially those subscribing to Platonic ideas might say that the man in white was rational, while the man in black acted irrationally. They would argue that once a person sees an object of value about to be destroyed then they will act to save that object if it is easily within their ability because that is the logical and sensible thing to do. This philosophy is flawed in two ways, however.

First, because it assumes that each man places an intrinsic value on the vase. That society sees the vase as valuable in no way makes the man in black incorrect if he personally places no value on it. This is a common mistake many people make. It must be made clear that an objective value is the same as an absolute value, that is, it is irrefutable. To say that a vast majority holds a value true simply makes it a consensus, which is still subjective. A single sane opinion to the contrary makes the moral subjective. There are several explanations as to why a person might not place value in a vase, which makes the value of the vase subjective. Therefore it cannot be assumed that this one man’s subjective morals coincide with the consensus.

Secondly, it assumes that if a consensus value cannot validate an assumption then the universe has an objective moral value independent of both the consensus and the individual. This is something that with a small amount of logic can easily be proven false. I hold this one simple fact to be true; the universe contains no objective values. Issues of right and wrong are resolved only by the subjective views of the minds evaluating them. A common counter-example to this argument is to state a widely held, or consensus, moral view such as “rape is bad”, but it is a simple point to overcome. Certainly, it is a widely held view that rape is bad and in almost any area of the world during any time period an individual would be frowned upon for believing otherwise. But this is not to say that this holds for all areas of the world during all time periods. Rape is extremely selfish and harmful to the victim. It can destroy a person’s life for but a few moments of pleasure. We might see all these things as bad, but we must also see that these views are subjective, that we can only be certain that they are held by us.

A rapist could argue that by catching and subjecting a woman to rape he has proven his genetic material to be stronger than a person who did not do such. Therefore rape is simply Darwinism in that the stronger person will be able to continue his genetic line, albeit without the consent of the other participant. He could also argue from a Hedonist view that he has no concern for his victim’s feelings and therefore sacrificing them to achieve pleasure for himself would be a perfectly moral and desirable situation. We are free to strongly protest this point of view, but there is no universal law proving that our subjective views are any more valid than his. As we continue with this line of reasoning the points being made become more and more morbid, but we must see the issues objectively in order to see the truth for what it is. The strongest arguments for objective morals come from those who are too naïve to see human nature for what it is, or could be. This becomes obvious when the issue of rape is raised. A Platonist will argue that even a Hedonist who commits rape because he is submitting to a wanton desire will realize that what he is doing wrong, but that he simply sees his own desires as more important than the greater moral value of the act. There is no proof supporting this. Given the limitless range of human personalities it can be assumed that someone is holding almost every view conceivable somewhere, or that it was at some point in the past. And if not the past, then very likely the future. Only a few hundred years ago it was a consensus that slavery was acceptable. Moreover, it was even held by many that to not believe in slavery was morally incorrect. Human thought has progressed since then and at this point it is the consensus that slavery is morally incorrect. Still, there is no objective proof that our current view is morally superior to that of the past, which is because neither is objectively superior. Our view has not necessarily evolved, only changed. Therefore there is nothing to stop it from changing back or changing to an entirely new view. This basic concept can be applied to any issue to show that even if throughout human history a certain moral has never been advocated it is probable that at some point it will be. This is the main point in disagreeing with objective morals, that any and all possibilities are as valid in the view of the universe as any other because the universe has to view to evaluate them. Morals on exist due to the will of those individuals forming them.

This brings us to the issue of law. Law is society imposing morals upon us in what can be interpreted either as trying to put forward it’s morals as the right ones, or simply as society trying to protect itself. This is not to say that these morals are objective, or even that those making the laws want us to believe that they are objective necessarily. Laws are simply the consensus opinion on an issue in a given place and time where the outcome has the possibility of being harmful to a party involved. Laws can lead people to believe morals are objective because they live in a society and societies tend to be so isolated from one another that individuals start to think that their society’s values reflect those of all societies. Therefore even though the universe has no objective values it can seem as though their universe has objective values, because they are not as exposed to opposite subjective opinions. This shows the importance of realizing that there are many views outside the scope of one’s personal experiences.

Law, though subjective, is valid if it does not present itself as the enforcement of objective morals, but rather as the enforcement of consensus morals by the consensus. Because objective morals do not exist it must be admitted that the views of a person not conforming to laws are as valid as those creating the laws. Still, the consensus has the right to discourage and punish actions based on contrary morals if they feel that they are threatened by them. This is not based on any interpretation of who is more or less correct, but rather it stems from the principle that any one person or group of people has the right and obligation to defend themselves. This applies not only to physical and social attacks, but also on philosophical attacks where a person is forced to fight for the survival of their moral values. Laws are the result of this conflict in morals, where the winners gain the power to stop the losers’ views from gaining support, helping to ensure its own survival. All of these arguments mean little unless we understand the nature of morality. Morality is not a constant, tangible value. It is not something that can be measured or proven through experiment. Any fixed value that is part of nature can be experimented upon and tested to find reproducible results. This does not apply to morality. If we see a man hit a woman we can calculate exactly the force of the impact, as well an innumerable other figures and values. Given the proper equipment and training and person at any angle can judge these things. Not so with morality. Given the different personalities and backgrounds of the observers their moral evaluations will not coincide. This proves that that moral value is subjective because it originated from the observer.

So it becomes clear that objective morality is nothing but an illusion created by a consensus. Every situation that is given a moral value is done so subjectively, but because individuals tend to see only the small world around them they see these values as applying to their entire world. Only when we detach ourselves from our small lives and start to see the constant changes in morals throughout space and time do we see that a constantly correct moral is impossible.