Cristina Marichi PHL 201 March 9, 2012 The Objective Basis of Morality The origins of morality and the

stipulations that define the good, bad, immoral or moral are concepts that trouble some minds. These controversial topics have been debated a countless number of times in the history of thought. For example, moral objectivism and moral relativism are concepts that are in direct conflict with one another. Moral objectivism is the belief that universally valid moral principles exist and moral judgements can be either true or false. On the other hand, moral relativism is the belief that there are no universally moral principles and each persons culture determines his or her own set of moral principles. However enticing it is to include personal preference and tolerance in the definition of morality, I believe that there are some inalienable human rights that have to be considered when describing what morality is. Thomas Nagel, an objectivist, states reasons as to why people should care about others in his essay, The Objective Basis of Morality. He asks the question that we may have all pondered on before: why should I care about others? or why should I have to be moral?. He argues against moral relativism because we cannot base the morality of something by the flavor of the week or the preferences that a particular individual already has. He states that the concepts of good and bad or right and wrong have to apply to all people and animals in general, and not to a select few in order to be called morality. In his essay he uses the example of a hypothetical friend of yours who wants to steal a rare reference book from the library in which you are employed and poses your conflict with loyalty to your friend, loyalty to your employer and doing the right thing as the forces that come in to play in decision making and in the determination of morality.

He poses the questions: what makes this action wrong? where does the lack of desire to help your friend steal this book come from?. He suggests that these thoughts may come from the ingrained habit of considering what effect this action may have on others. However, what if your friend could care less about the effect this action has on others? In that case, where is the wrong, or immorality in that? There are different schools of thought for answering the question of whether universal moral values can actually exist. Ethical Relativists deny that any objective moral values exist. Ethical Subjectivists hold that moral claims are true based on beliefs of the individual and Cultural Relativists hold that moral claims are based on beliefs of a particular culture. In short, subjectivists believe that each person, along with his or her given culture, has a unique set of principles that determine moral behavior. This school of thought perpetuates tolerance. However attractive the

notion of subjectivism and tolerance may be, I dont believe that it is pervasive. Where do we draw the line in tolerance? Some of the worlds most atrocious behavior have to be allowed in efforts to consider a peoples cultural upbringing. In modern society, it is not morally acceptable to throw your children into the mouth of a volcano, such as the Aztecs did; or is it acceptable to allow for satanic rituals where physical harm is done to people or animals. There is such a thing as instinct. Biological comparisons between animals and humans show the commonality of survival of the species. Animals, human or otherwise, tend to protect the young from harm and tend to set up their communities for prosperity and propagation. I believe that this is where the concept of morality stems from. Being thinking animals, we expand upon this concept to include the pursuit of happiness as a moral right. People who subscribe to ethical objectivism would be more likely to agree with me.

Does each human in this world not have a certain loyalty to one another? If that loyalty to another human being is not there does that exclude them from morality? In the example of stealing someones umbrella during a major thunderstorm Nagel runs through the feelings that one would experience if that scenario was to truly happen. He also goes into posing the question of how would you like if some did that you you? The answer is obvious, I would not only be unhappy if someone were to do that to me, but I would gravely resent it. Knowing that I would resent it if someone else did that to me, would be reason enough to assume others would not like it either on the converse. This exercise in logic is what drives people to accept or reject behavior and what underlies morality. These reasons are instilled in us through a universal set of moral principles. Our moral principles serve to enhance the greater good. Our well being, interests and desires matter not only to us but should matter to the rest of the world since there is a sense of reciprocity in human nature. As Mr. Nagel proposes, morality pertains to everyone without exclusion: We all think that when we suffer it is not just bad for us, but bad period . I ultimately agree with the basis of morality that Nagel presents. He states the basis of morality is a belief that good and harm to particular people (or animals) is good or bad not just from a persons view point, but from a more general point of view, which every thinking person can understand . This basis of morality challenges us to make a conscious decision to protect our own interests and well being by thinking of others and considering how it would feel if it was to happen to us.