Morality is a subject that is not so easy to simplify and because of this it has been a topic of great philosophical debate for thousands of years. The debate continues today and permeates all sectors of society. Yet, for all of the books written on morality, the exact nature of it remains obscure and it remains the subject of many passionate and heated debates. Not only do individuals and cultures argue as to the exact parameters of morality, but many claim that in fact no parameters exist and that morality is, in fact, relative. Morality defines actions and behaviors on both a societal and individual level as either ‘good’ or ‘bad.’  There are two basic lines of thinking on this subject. One is that there is an inherent morality in the world and that some behaviors are inherently good and some are inherently bad. For those that believe in an inherent morality, however, there are many differing ideas on exactly which behaviors are inherently good and bad. The opposing viewpoint would be that there is no inherent morality and behaviors are never solidly good or bad. This viewpoint, called relativism, states that morality is simply a matter of a cultural experience and relative to each individual depending on their culture and specific life experiences.  Countless arguments on the topic of morality have been made by great minds including Sarte, Confucius, Nietzche and Pirsig and have offered insight into the dilemma as to whether or not morality, and its subset of ethics, is in fact a subjective or objective reality and what this ultimately means for the human race.

Every religion has grown from a set of moral values that followers feel are necessary in order to be a good and spiritual person. Some religions have taken their moral values so seriously that they believe that non believers, or those that do not hold the same moral values, must die. Their belief in the objective nature of morality leads them to believe that their actions are in accords with universal law because the ‘immoral’ offenders were upsetting the laws of morality. Other believers in objective morality feel that it does not matter if others to not conform to moral laws, and believe that it is most important to change oneself and live a moral life. One of the most famous believers in objective morality is the Chinese philosopher Confucius, whose teachings have influenced many of the major eastern religions. Confucius believed that morality was objective and that through mediation, an adherence to ritual and by treating others with benevolence and respect morality would prevail and violence and problems caused by human interactions would vanish from the world. To Confucius, the world’s ills and immorality sprang not from a lack of objective morality but instead from individuals not adhering to the rituals that allowed one to naturally follow morality’s path.

However, there are those that do not agree with Confucius and other followers of objective morality. They find fault in the reasoning of objective morality adherents due to the fact that each group has a different definition of morality. Some groups find female circumcision a moral, participating in it because of deeply held religious beliefs. Other groups find this action abhorrent and a sign of moral degradation within the cultural groups that practice it. Who is right? Subjective morality philosopher’s would say that morality is relative to each individual depending on their unique life experience.  Philosophers such as Nietzsche took subjective morality even one step further, writing that traditional morality…is for “slaves” who are unable or unwilling to seize the power that they want (Kelley).” Sarte, one of the most famous philosophers of the 20^th century, believed that “people…create their own morality through the choices they make, through the lines they themselves draw as to what they will and will not do (Smitha).”  A common thread in the subjective view of morality, however, is that actions of individuals are held accountable by the individual and to the society in which he exists. If someone does something that is immoral in their society, the punishment will come from the community, not from a higher being or ordered state.

Objective morality has found favor outside of the religious community and has been explored by some members of the scientific community. Robin Allott, in his paper Objective Morality presents an argument for objective morality from a evolutionary point of view. He suggests that morality may have been a factor that enabled human groups to survive. Those with a certain morality would have been able to pass their genes on to the next generation, allowing moral codes to continue to evolve.