I am taking a Coursera course on Philosophy and while watching a lecture, it discussed whether morality is objective or subjective. It went on to point out that there are three general schools of thought on this.
What seems to be lacking from these is a compromise based on the inherent flaw of humanity(and any consciousness) that we cannot perceive outside of our own perception and, as such, we cannot truly know that what we perceive is objective or not. Even with empirical evidence and judgments, we are bound by what and how we perceive the world around us and so we must accept a degree of relativism, even in that the sun rises in the East. While considered to be objectively and empirically true, it is still a judgment based on human perception and thus is subject to relative thought and judgment.
As such, I wrote down my thoughts on this. I don't know if this corresponds to some subset of philosophical thought, but this was my initial reaction to the apparent division in the schools of philosophy regarding morality:
"Most every person/group who commits an immoral action can rationalize that action as somehow moral, thus perception plays an important part in the morality of the individual and the group.
While there may be an 'objective morality', we may only proceed based upon our individual and collective perceptions making moral judgments a product of relative thought rather than objective observation.
In other words, we cannot show an example of morality in the world outside of human perception, thus we can only determine morality based on human perception. While we may perceive something to be moral and have that correspond with the proposed 'objective morality' that is no evidence that we have concluded such morality objectively as we cannot point to any objective evidence to support such morality, it is all based purely on our perception.
Therefore, 'objective morality' or not, we can only determine morality in a relative sense."
In this edit, I am including this thought that occurred to me as I continued the lesson:
"If something must be have an objective 'true/false' paradigm, then morality may only be objective in situations in which there is a clear 'true/false' answer. More specifically, the issue of morality is an issue of 'harm' versus 'non-harm'. Typically, the claim of something being immoral is that it is somehow 'harmful'.
For instance, genocide has a clear 'true/false' answer: does genocide necessarily result in the undesired harm of another? Yes. The 'victim' of genocide does not wish such harm and so it may be objectively immoral to commit genocide.
Meanwhile the issue of polygamy has no clear 'true/false' answer. While many may claim that it is 'harmful' to society, there is little if any direct harm upon those involved in polygamy and less so of those not directly involved. The 'harm' is more likely a result of perception of the morality of polygamy than it is of actual, objective harm. Thus the issue of polygamy is a matter of 'relative' morality in that its morality(harm/non-harm) results from perspective rather than being an unavoidable result of the act.
However, even this is subject to relativism as the harm done to the unconsenting person(s) may be found to be 'moral' because it is done in defense of other person(s). For instance, a woman who 'harms' her attacker, who does not consent to the 'harm' is not considered immoral because her 'harm' was in response to the attacker's intent to 'harm'. And so, again, morality, even based on this 'true/false' paradigm of 'harm/non-harm' is still subject to perception and thus is relative. "
I would love some opinions on this.