Morality and Subjectivity....
by Rod Jackson
First let me define a few words so that it is clear what I am trying to say.
Absolute - Always applies in every situation, every time and place.
Subjective - That which pertains to the subject (ie. the individual).
Objective - That which is external to the individual.
Moral - Something is moral if it is good.
Amoral - Something is amoral if it is without morals (ie. neutral).
Immoral - Something is immoral if it is in violation of morals (ie. evil).
I propose that morality must be subjective. That is, it must be the case that without a subject there can be no morality (it is amoral). For example, objectively it is not the case that a volcano is responsible for its actions, and hence a volcano cannot be evil (similarly it cannot be good) and so is amoral. But if a volcano destroys a person's village, then that person can subjectively declare the volcano as evil. This is because A is a subject (ie. is personal) and so can subjectively it is evil to A (even though it is not objectively evil). So having established that the nature of morality is subjective, how can any standards apply? If all morality is subjective and necessarily so, then how can there be an absolute standard?
Well simply if there can be a morality that is both subjective and absolute. Consider the subject 'God'. God is a subject and hence has His own subjective moral standard. But God also cannot change and so God's subjective morality cannot change. God is universal and our creator hence God's standards apply everywhere, every time and every place. It is always the same (unchanging) thus it is absolute. So the subjective-absolute morality can exist due to the nature of God (the unchanging subject who has all authority).