Embracing Moral Objectivism Entails Intolerance.

Embracing Moral Objectivism Entails Intolerance: A Complex Relationship

Moral objectivism, the belief that moral truths exist independently of human opinion, is a philosophy with far-reaching implications. It asserts that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of cultural norms or individual perspectives. While seemingly straightforward, this principle sparks considerable debate, with many arguing that embracing moral objectivism inevitably leads to intolerance. This article will explore this complex relationship, examining the arguments for and against this assertion, and ultimately concluding that while objectivism can contribute to intolerance, it doesn't inherently necessitate it. The key lies in how we understand and apply objective moral principles.

Understanding Moral Objectivism

At its core, moral objectivism posits the existence of objective moral facts. These aren't merely subjective preferences or cultural constructs, but rather truths about what is good and bad, right and wrong, that hold true universally. For example, a moral objectivist might argue that murder is inherently wrong, irrespective of whether a particular culture condones it or an individual believes it to be acceptable under specific circumstances. This contrasts sharply with moral relativism, which asserts that morality is relative to individual or cultural perspectives.

Several arguments underpin moral objectivism. Some appeal to a divine command theory, claiming that God dictates morality. Others posit the existence of inherent human nature or reason that reveals objective moral truths. Still others argue from the universality of certain moral intuitions, suggesting that shared moral judgments across diverse cultures point towards objective moral standards. Regardless of the specific justification, the core tenet remains: there are objective moral truths independent of human opinion.

The Argument for Intolerance: Objectivism as a Source of Conflict

The connection between moral objectivism and intolerance is often framed as follows: if certain actions are objectively wrong, then those who perform them are acting wrongly, and potentially harming others. This leads to the conclusion that it is morally justifiable, perhaps even obligatory, to oppose or prevent such actions. This opposition can manifest as intolerance.

Consider the example of slavery. A moral objectivist might argue that slavery is objectively wrong, a violation of fundamental human rights. This belief might then lead to intolerance towards those who practice or support slavery, with actions ranging from social condemnation to active resistance. Similarly, objectivist stances on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, or capital punishment can lead to conflict and intolerance towards those holding differing views. The very act of asserting objective truth can be interpreted as a rejection of other perspectives, fueling intolerance.

Furthermore, the application of objective moral principles can be problematic. Who decides what constitutes an objective moral truth? If one group believes they possess a monopoly on moral truth, they might be tempted to impose their views on others, leading to suppression and intolerance. Historical examples of religious persecution and ideological oppression demonstrate how the belief in possessing absolute moral authority can justify violence and oppression. This highlights a crucial point: the potential for intolerance arises not solely from the acceptance of objective morality, but from the manner in which these principles are applied.

The Counter-Argument: Objectivism as a Foundation for Tolerance

However, to equate moral objectivism with intolerance is an oversimplification. A robust defense can be mounted arguing that objectivism can actually foster tolerance, albeit a different kind than the acceptance of all viewpoints.

Firstly, the existence of objective moral principles provides a common ground for discourse and mutual understanding. While disagreements on the specifics might remain, a shared commitment to objective truth can encourage respectful debate and the search for common ground. Instead of resorting to subjective preferences or power dynamics, discussions can focus on reasoning and evidence to determine what is truly right or wrong.

Secondly, a properly understood moral objectivism emphasizes the importance of reason and evidence in moral inquiry. This counters intolerance by discouraging the arbitrary imposition of beliefs. Instead of dismissing opposing viewpoints out of hand, a commitment to reason demands careful consideration and a willingness to engage with differing perspectives. This doesn't imply moral relativism, where all viewpoints are equally valid. Rather, it suggests a commitment to using reason and evidence to evaluate the merits of different claims.

Thirdly, many objective moral principles, such as the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), implicitly promote tolerance. While the Golden Rule doesn't condone every action, it highlights the importance of empathy and considering the well-being of others. This creates a basis for respecting diverse viewpoints and avoiding unnecessary conflict.

Finally, it is vital to distinguish between intolerance of actions and intolerance of beliefs. Moral objectivism might entail intolerance towards actions deemed objectively wrong, such as murder or theft. However, it doesn't necessarily entail intolerance towards the beliefs that motivate these actions. One can condemn an action while simultaneously recognizing the individual’s right to hold their beliefs, albeit flawed ones. This nuanced approach is crucial in avoiding the pitfalls of intolerant absolutism.

The Role of Context and Application

The relationship between moral objectivism and intolerance is highly dependent on the context and the manner in which objective principles are applied. An objectivist who believes in the inherent dignity of all human beings might actively fight for social justice and equality, challenging unjust systems and advocating for marginalized groups. This is a manifestation of tolerance, driven by an objective moral commitment.

Conversely, an objectivist who believes their interpretation of objective truth is absolute might employ oppressive measures to enforce their views, leading to significant intolerance. The key difference lies not in the acceptance of objective morality but in the methods employed to uphold it. The former relies on persuasion, reason, and democratic processes; the latter resorts to coercion and authoritarianism.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: If moral objectivism is true, doesn't that mean that all moral disagreements are simply misunderstandings?

A: Not necessarily. While objective moral truths exist, disagreements can arise from different interpretations of those truths, lack of knowledge about relevant facts, or biases that distort our reasoning. Even with shared objective moral standards, reasonable people can disagree on how to apply them in specific contexts.

Q: Doesn't moral objectivism lead to moral absolutism, where no exceptions are allowed?

A: Not necessarily. While some forms of moral objectivism might embrace absolutism, others acknowledge the complexity of real-world situations and allow for exceptions under specific circumstances. The crucial point is to define objective principles clearly and apply them thoughtfully, acknowledging potential conflicts and grey areas.

Q: How can we determine what constitutes an objective moral truth?

A: This is a complex philosophical question with various answers. Some approaches appeal to reason, others to intuition, and some to divine revelation. Ultimately, the quest for objective moral truth requires careful consideration of various arguments and perspectives, acknowledging the limitations of human knowledge.

Conclusion: A Nuanced Relationship

The relationship between moral objectivism and intolerance is far more nuanced than a simple causal link. While the assertion of objective moral truths can lead to intolerance if applied dogmatically and without considering the complexities of human experience, it does not inevitably do so. Indeed, a commitment to objective moral principles, when coupled with reason, empathy, and a respect for due process, can provide a strong foundation for promoting tolerance and building a more just and equitable society. The key lies not in abandoning the search for objective truth, but in refining our methods for understanding and applying it. A thoughtful and responsible approach to moral objectivism can promote both moral clarity and societal harmony, challenging the notion that a commitment to objective morality automatically translates into intolerance.