Sub-Objective Morality

“Because I said so.” You’ve probably heard it before. The prime phrase used by parents to answer the questions of their children when their probings become too much. The phrase that simultaneously lays down the law, and lets you know the reason behind it: the authority of the parents. For children, their behavior is controlled by the rules of the parents and what they say is right and wrong, but as we get older, our sense of morality stems less and less from the authority of our parents, and it comes more and more from an outside standard. This outside standard is what is known as objective morality: the idea that there is a definite definition of what is right and wrong that is grounded in an unchanging, constant source of absolute truth. But what if you lived in a world where this outside source was not objective or constant at all? What if you lived in a world that didn’t have one sovereign power as its basis and standard for objective morality? This would be a horrible moral system to live in, and in The Aeneid, this appears to be just the case.

In Virgil’s story, the main character Aeneas travels around the world in search of a home for his Trojan people, but must constantly deal with the interference of the Roman gods. These interferences are sometimes helpful, sometimes disastrous, but no matter what happens, he continues to strive as best as he can to be strong, lead his people, and follow the gods. He does his best to do the right thing, but to say that brings up the question, what is the right thing? In the book, more than once when people are describing Aeneas as virtuous and good, they mention his devotion to the gods as a key reason. “Why did she force a man, so famous for his devotion, / to brave such rounds of hardship, bear such trials?” (1.11-12). Throughout the book, the theme of obedience to the gods is almost equated with righteousness, and disobedience with sin. If we stopped there, it could make some sense. The gods are good so serving them is good. However, things get murkier the more you learn about the gods and their character.

In order for something to be objective, it must be constant and cannot change. The gods, however, are not constant at all and frequently change their minds and attitudes as the story goes on. In one instance when Venus went to Jupiter in tears, she says, “... you promised! Father, what motive changed your mind?” (1.281). These gods were not unchangeable and constant, they were fickle beings who would sometimes say one thing and do another. At one point, Juno approached Venus and proposed to devise a scheme between the two of them to get Aeneas to marry Queen Dido. Venus saw through it for the pretense it was and agreed to go along with it, yet secretly had a plan of her own. “So Juno appealed / and Venus did not oppose her, nodding in assent / and smiling at all the guile she saw through…” (4.157-159). This isn’t constant at all, this is lying and trickery.

Another characteristic that is necessary in order for something to be objective is fairness. If something is objective, it is fair and just for all. This goes along with being constant. If a certain consequence follows an action, that consequence should be the result of every similar action that happens for everyone. When Aeneas journeyed to the Underworld to see his father, he went by all the different layers, including the section of suffering reserved for the wicked, Tartarus. As he passed this hell, he marveled at the horror of it and asked his guide, Sibyl, “What are the crimes, what kinds? Tell me, Sibyl, / what are the punishments, why this scourging? / Why such wailing echoes in the air?” (6.650-652). She answered him by listing a bunch of people who had committed evil acts and listing a bunch of sins and crimes that those people had committed. In her list, one of the crimes mentioned was rape (6.721-722). But earlier in the book, Virgil mentions a king named Iarbas who was the son of an African nymph whom Jove, the king of the gods, had raped (134.248). If rape is wrong and listed as one of the crimes for Tartarus, how did Jove do it and get away with it? Why was it okay for him to do this sin, but not for ordinary people to? This isn’t fair, just, or constant.

There are many instances when the gods displayed behavior that was not objective. Time and time again, they portrayed their character as subjective rather than objective. They had their own emotions and feelings that could be swayed, their own opinions that affected the way they acted and what they did. Juno’s fierce anger, the cause of so much anguish for the Trojans, drove her to act irrationally multiple times, to fight battles she knew she couldn’t win, and to keep trying to change the way things were destined to go. She even said, “It’s not for me to deny him his Latin throne? So be it. / Let Lavinia be his bride. An iron fact of fate. / But I can drag things out, delay the whole affair…” (7.366-368).  This is not something that an objectively moral being would do. This is purely subjective, behavior that comes directly from her own opinions and her pride.

The morality demonstrated by the gods of the Aeneid is completely subjective and therefore is not true morality at all. There is no definite right or wrong in that world if the gods are the highest authority, it’s just a matter of how they’re feeling at that moment and what their current opinions are. Not only would it be subjective, it would be sub-par. Morality like that would be hypocritical and not even worthy of the name. You would never be able to trust in what is right and stay away from what is wrong because there would be no clear-cut definition of what they were. This would lead to ruin and make void the virtues of kindness, love, and every other good thing. Aren’t we all thankful to live in a world where we do have a true, objective standard rather than a sub-objective morality?