The Objectivity and Rationality of Morality Essay

The difference in moral values of different people can vary

depending on their culture and beliefs. There is much debate on

whether or not the values of all people should be changed to fit a

single standard of moral absolutes. Martha Nussbaum delves into this

idea of morality in her book “Women and Cultural Universals”. In this

book Nussbaum discusses the need for universal human rights and

privileges. This is similar to the work of Stephen Jay Gould entitled

“What Does the Dreaded “E” Word Mean, Anyway?,” in which Gould

discusses Evolution and the meaning of the definition and the use of

the word itself. He then discusses how they too should be universal in

meaning and in usage. One other author who also discusses ethics is

Frans De Waal in his work “The Ape and the Sushi Master.” De Waal

discusses the notion of altruism and how it allows humans to

understand themselves better. These three authors discuss the power

of ethics and morality and the roles they play in many peoples’ lives.

Despite the world’s need for moral absolutes; the road to obtaining

such a thing is long and treacherous and if it is decided that the world

does in fact want moral absolutes it will need and take much

consideration and an overall agreement on what morals we should

follow.
 There are many ideas for the formation of universal morality, yet it

is hard to find one that works to benefit everyone. The need for moral

absolutes becomes clear when it comes to the treatment of women in

many countries. The United States for example prides itself in its

treatment of women, despite the large room for improvement, in

comparison to other countries. Yet it is very clear that the treatment of

women is unfair all over the world. Martha Nussbaum wrote of how

severe the mistreatment of women has become. “Women, a majority

of the world’s population, receive only a small portion of its

opportunities and benefits” (Nussbaum 360). This clearly shows how

serious the lack of universal morality really is. Nussbaum uses these

statistics to help prove the need for universal morality. It is clear that

women need to be treated as equal as men. Individuals must realize

that the need for women to have equal rights does not lie in the

usefulness of women to men. Equality should not be done with the

intent that the superior group would still benefit more than the once

inferior group. “[T] he helping responses of dolphins, gorillas, or

people toward strangers in need evolved in the context of a close-knit

group life in which most of the time such actions benefited relatives

and companions able to repay the favor” (De Waal 689). The dolphins,

gorillas and people that De Waal is referring to are those with once
selfish tendencies. Those tendencies now cause them to act

altruistically towards one another. If these people still acted selfishly

they would be the type that would argue for universal morality only if

they were able to find a way that it would benefit them. These types of

people would believe in the principle of “You scratch my back, I’ll

scratch yours” (De Waal 683). Women, who are mistreated, may be

able to receive the benefits of equality if some men were able to find

ways that women’s equality would help them. Though this would help

accomplish universal morality, it would do so in the wrong way. There

are those people who no long act selfishly but instead are able to act

altruistically. This would make it easier to obtain universal morality but

there are many more obstacles that make it very hard for universal

morality to take place. Unlike the people who changed their selfish

ways; many people do not want to change their beliefs and especially

their way of life. Gould shows this as he discusses Darwin’s follower’s

distaste for change. “ Darwin’s contemporaries (and many people

today as well) would not surrender their traditional view[s]” (Gould

200). Many people are very stubborn when it comes to changing their

views. Darwin’s contemporaries are much like people today; neither

group really wishes to change what they know to something unknown.

Nussbaum shows that women are treated quite unfairly throughout the
world. This is because it is embedded in many men’s minds that

women should be subordinate to them and that they do not deserve

the same rights as men. This further proves the difficulty that the

human race must face in order to establish universal morality. De Waal

and Gould both show examples that some ideas may not be best

suited to achieve a code of ethics and morality for the entire world.

Though there are many other possibilities for humans to achieve a

sense of moral absolutes.

There is no one right way for humans to achieve universal morality.

Some may turn to religion to find an answer to the moral dilemma that

the world faces. Almost all religions have different views on what it

right and wrong and how certain people should be treated and with

how much, in any, respect. There are some religions that take away

human rights all together. “[T]he practice of female genital mutilation,

which deprives individuals of he opportunity to choose sexual

functioning (and indeed, the opportunity to choose celibacy as well)”

(Nussbaum 374). This is a direct example of how human rights are

barred by a religious or tribal tradition. The women that Nussbaum is

referring to are unable to even make the choice whether or not they

would like to be sexually active. This practice by this culture is not as

widely accepted, as the culture would probably wish it to be. Many

other cultures and religions would and do frown upon this sort of

practice of female genital mutilation. Many cultures and religions are

not as accepting of others as they should be at times. This poses a

problem when trying to find a compromise between this type of

religion or culture and one on the opposite side of the moral spectrum.

It is also hard to turn to the scientific field, as research shows that not

all humans can be nice and follow a code of morality, without

expecting some sort of gain in return. De Waal wrote of Thomas

Hobbes and Thomas Huxley who feel that “the original state of

humankind, and of nature in general, is one in which selfish goal are

pursued without regard for others” (De Waal 693). Hobbes and Huxley

both come to the conclusion that humans do things for themselves

only without caring about others. In this case De Waal gives the idea

that people do have a choice in what they do, and many choose to act

selfishly. Nussbaum believes that people should have the choice and

the capability to do what they wish to. This helps to show that in order

for universal morality to work, Nussbaum may need to rethink her

approach. There is another approach that the people of the world may

be able to take in order to achieve a sense of morality that is

acceptable to everyone; which is the theory of using politics to help

form a global sense of morality. The main problem with trying to use
politics to try to solve the world’s morality problem is that politics

chooses its winner by majority vote. Politics also has the problem that

it assumes that the majority vote winner is always right. There are

many examples where this is not always the case. There are many

people who do not share the same views as others and this causes a

large problem in using politics for solving the world’s issue of morality.

“The Kansas school board has reduced evolution, the central and

unifying concept of the life sciences, to an optional subject within the

states curriculum” (Gould 198). The state of Kansas decided to make

the teaching of the widely accepted theory of Evolution an optional

course. The students who choose not to take the course in Evolution

are put at a disadvantage to the students who do take the course and

the students in other states. The Kansas state school board feels that

their views on Evolution are the right ones. Despite the lack of

evidence to prove whether or not the theory of Evolution is correct, it is

still the most widely accepted theory. This further proves that politics

does not work, though the Kansas State school board did not attempt

to use their influence to affect other states, the mere notion that they

do not teach Evolution, can severely affect the other states. This is

quite similar to the act of female genital mutilation that Nussbaum

wrote about. Both of these authors describe instances where one

group chooses to do certain things that may go against the ideals and

morals of another group.

It would seem that it is impossible to achieve a sense of

universal morality that meets everyone’s needs and makes everyone

happy. The world’s need for moral absolutes may never be met, but

that does not mean that the people of the world should give up all

hope of obtaining it. It is very hard to find a path that makes everyone

happy. Many people are selfish and do not wish to change their ways.

It is thought that religion can help shape universal morality, but this

too causes a problem since many religions have different views on

morality and not many are open to change their views to match that of

another. Science has also further proven that universal morality is very

difficult to obtain since different people sometimes interpret science

quite differently. Many people feel that using politics to find an answer

is the best way. But this too has been shown not to be as effective as

people would hope it to be. Politics rely heavily on majority vote.

Majority vote is believed to benefit everyone, but it has been shown

that the majority of people do not always embody the feelings and

opinions of the population as a whole. It is very hard for universal

morality to take place, but the idea should not be abandoned entirely.