ETHICAL OBJECTIVISM In ethical objectivism moral values and virtues are intrinsic, not dependent on anything outside of them. In ethical objectivism moral law is uncreated and eternal and not subject to any will, divine or human. (One form of ethical objectivism is moral absolutism.) No will can lessen the consequence of acts against the law. There is no grace in ethical objectivism. In order to avoid punishment, one must perfect one's life and follow the law perfectly. The law of karma, continuous birth, death and rebirth until such moral perfection is reached, appears to be the ultimate expression of ethical objectivism. In Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, for most people one lifetime is not enough for such moral perfection. The "Law of Karma" holds that if people act in evil ways, that evil will eventually return to them. Conversely, if people do good deeds, then they will advance in spiritual progress. This is connected to reincarnation, where those with a "negative balance" in good deeds will come back in a lower position in society or the animal world. Ethical subjectivism, as we have seen above, is the opposite of ethical objectivism. Subjectivism says that the moral values are dependent on a human or divine will, that they can change from one situation to another. Please note that a large majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in moral absolutism, which is a form of ethical objectivism. Also note that Buddhists may have a weaker definition of the law of karma. For some Buddhists it may simply mean that actions have consequences. When it comes to deciding whether Aristotle, Confucius, and the Buddha are ethical objectivists or subjectivists, you should focus on the following questions: (1) For Aristotle and Confucius who or what tells us the right action? (2) What is the role that God plays for Aristotle and Heaven for Confucius? and (3) Does "relative to" me in each of these thinkers undermine ethical objectivism?
