On the Subjectivity of Morals
Friedrich Nietzsche called them humanity’s “herd instinct.” John Stuart Mill stated that they are the proportion to which an action leads to human happiness. Socrates believed that a “moral” individual would not harm an “immoral” individual. Philosophers (and scientists) have long debated the essence of morality, and different cultures have all at various times, and even today, possess differing ideas of what is morally acceptable. But one question above all else rings clear: do morals actually exist apart from our subjective human world, in the objective realm? To be clear, morals and ethics are something urgently required by society to function properly and to ensure human happiness and trust. For truly, a world without morals would be a world of chaos and misfortune, presumably. With that established, however, do morals actually exist objectively?
Think back a few hundred thousand years: nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers wandering the fields and forests of our Earth. A group or tribe or clan that had no established moral or ethical sense would presumably contain self-serving individuals who would take what they wanted and do what they wanted to the other individuals in the group without restraint. The tribe would simply descend into chaos, and the population would be lessened, and thus, such a mindset of people would not be able to very well reproduce.
Now imagine a group containing individuals with a moral sense. These individuals would look out for each other, and care for each other, and thereby protect each other; and, as consequence, their population would grow and they would have a much better opportunity to reproduce. Thus, over the generations, the population of morally and ethically-sensible individuals would eventually severely outnumber those without a moral sense.
That is the evolutionary perspective, anyway, but to me, it makes a lot of sense. In nature, of all animals and types, there are those beings that cooperate, and even more that simply ignore each other. Other animals besides humans are social - this being for communication about food, mating, and shelter - and even those that do attack each other or cannibalize other animals of their species (such as alligators) still tend to care for their offspring.
Those with a moral sense are biologically fated to predominate in a given area (assuming that intelligence is accounted for). The stronger the moral sense, the better the members of a society protect and look out for each other, and the more the population grows. Those without morals tend to simply descend into low numbers as they fight and betray, and eventually become few or even extinct. And look now: humans - the most-moral animals - are on top.
The bottom line is this: morals are, in my opinion, certainly required for a well-reasoned, advanced, and functioning society. In fact, this sense is so deeply encoded in our genetics, that even human infants display a common tendency to favor a figure who is perceived as benevolent rather than a malevolent one. However…does the notion that morals and ethics are required for society to function properly and for human happiness mean that they objectively carry any meaning? I should think not.
As a nihilist myself, I do acknowledge that, objectively (though our human conceptions of words such as “good” and “bad” are well-reasoned, advanced, and frankly, necessary for our own survival), the notion that morals and ethics may be necessary for the survival of life does not mean that they objectively carry any value. Obviously, we need morals, and we should continue to fight for what we believe is right, but even within humanity, no single culture fights for the exact same thing, and everyone seems to assume that their perception is the right one.
This likely indicates that a true, objective moral rule does not exist. All in all, we are but a speck of dust in our tiny corner of space, and our subjective laws (arising within our tiny speck of a planet in our tiny speck of a solar system in our tiny speck of a galaxy in our tiny speck of space) may not apply to the rest of the universe that we still have yet to explore and uncover.
In the end, no matter what one does, I should argue, they are technically not bound by words such as “good” or “bad.” The universe simply does not care. However, in our advanced, modern, and well-reasoned human society, we must adhere to these principles which, as I have reasoned, appear to be within our genetic coding.
So, in a grander sense, I do not believe that morals exist in the objective realm, but I still maintain that they are what is required by society to keep it functioning. A robbery, the universe may not call a sin, but I will certainly look down upon it. A murder, the universe may not call a sin, but I dearly hope that we can all agree that no one should ever take the life of another. Morals are a creation - whether by chance or by nature - and such a wonderful, outstanding, necessary, and beautiful creation at that.