$0.48063 -4.30%
STEEM · 209w

The rational and emotional case for objective morality

What we've been hearing more often these days is that morality is totally subjective. This is one of the standpoints of the Post-Modernist, neo-marxist line of thought that especially sweeps through the universities in the West. When talking with a fellow student a while back, my conversation partner claimed that, although taxation is the same as theft, it is justified. Therefore, morality must be subjective, in their opinion.

However, if you look at this from a rational perspective, theft can't be moral.

Let's imagine how this would work out:

If morality is subjective, there are occasions in which theft is good. If theft is good, people will try to steal from each other. If theft is good, people will recognize the goodness of being stolen from. If you desire to get stolen from, theft becomes voluntary. If theft is voluntary, it is not theft. If theft can't be voluntary, theft is always bad If theft is always bad, morality can't be subjective.

Besides, if you tell somebody that he/she is wrong, you are actually using objective morality. Namely, you must first establish that there is a universal truth in order to know somebody is wrong. Therefore, post-modernism contradicts itself.

So, that's was the rational case.

As for the emotional case...

I'll let Professor Jordan Peterson have a word:

Go to
Recent news
No posts found