Hey there, have you ever wondered if there’s such a thing as objective morality? We all have strong opinions on right and wrong, but do moral truths actually exist independent of what any individual thinks or feels? This is a question that philosophers and theologians have grappled with for centuries. Rather than get bogged down in philosophical jargon, we’re going to take an intuitive look at the evidence for objective moral values and duties.
By the end of this, you’ll have a better sense of whether morality comes down to mere opinion or if there are certain acts that are wrong for themselves. So grab your favorite beverage and open your mind—we’re about to explore morality from a fresh perspective.
Table of Contents
What Is Objective Morality?
What exactly is objective morality? It’s the belief that certain moral truths exist independent of human opinion. Some actions are right or wrong, regardless of what any individual thinks about them. For example, most reasonable people agree that acts like violence against the innocent, theft, and deception are objectively immoral. They violate moral laws that transcend personal preferences.
On the other hand, subjective morality holds that nothing is intrinsically right or wrong. All moral judgments come down to individual choice and social custom. What’s “moral” depends entirely on personal feelings and cultural norms.
Proponents of objective morality argue that it provides a standard for judging different moral systems and helps solve conflicts between groups with opposing views. If objective moral laws exist, we can evaluate different moral codes to see which most closely match those laws. We can also appeal to objective morality to resolve disputes.
Of course, determining what constitutes objective morality—and whether it even exists—remains deeply controversial. But for many ethicists, the belief that some moral truths are universal provides a stable foundation for human rights and dignity. Rather than leaving individuals at the mercy of cultural whims, it gives us moral reference points that never change.
Objective Moral Facts vs. Subjective Moral Opinions
When it comes to morality, there’s a difference between objective moral facts and subjective moral opinions. Objective moral facts refer to moral standards that are true, independent of what any individual thinks or feels. Subjective moral opinions are moral views that depend primarily on individual preferences and perspectives.
Objective moral facts
Objective moral facts exist, whether or not we believe in them. For example, harming or killing innocent people just for fun is morally wrong. This moral fact doesn’t depend on any one person’s opinion. Most reasonable people across cultures accept certain actions, like murder, as morally wrong.
Some argue that objective moral facts come from God, nature, or reason. For example, natural law theory says moral rules like “don’t harm others” arise from human nature and natural inclinations. The divine command theory claims God determines objective moral facts. Other theories argue that moral facts can be discovered through reason alone.
Subjective moral opinions
Subjective moral opinions depend largely on personal feelings, experiences, and cultural influences. For example, views on sensuality, abortion, or euthanasia are often more subjective. Reasonable people can disagree on these complex issues.
Moral subjectivism claims that all moral judgments are reduced to subjective opinions. Relativism says moral rules depend entirely on cultural approval. But if morality were purely subjective, it could justify horrific evils like genocide or slavery.
Most ethicists argue that, while some moral issues are complex, objective moral facts, like prohibitions against cruelty, form the foundation of ethics. Subjective opinions and cultural influences shape moral views too, but they don’t negate moral facts. Understanding this balance between the objective and subjective aspects of morality is key to constructive moral discussions.
How Do We Discover Objective Moral Truths?
Discovering objective moral truths requires careful reasoning and an open mind. Rather than relying solely on opinions or emotions, we must evaluate moral issues logically and objectively. Some key methods for determining moral truth include:
1. Analyzing Logical Consistency
Do our moral views contain contradictions or logically flawed reasoning? For example, if we believe all human life is equally valuable but make exceptions for certain groups, that is logically inconsistent. Objective morality should be free of logical errors.
2. Considering Fairness and Impartiality
Are our moral views fair and impartial? Or do they favor some over others due to arbitrary factors like gender, race, or social status? Objective moral truths should apply equally to all individuals.
3. Examining Shared Intuitions
While intuitions aren’t infallible, cross-cultural moral intuitions, especially around issues like harm, fairness, and compassion, can point to objective moral truths. If an action seems morally wrong across societies, that is evidence it violates objective morality.
4. Evaluating Consequences
The consequences of moral views matter. If a view leads to increased harm and human suffering, that suggests it is not objectively moral. Objective morality should aim for the well-being and flourishing of all.
5. Considering Moral Facts
Some moral issues involve objective facts, like whether an action causes unnecessary harm or violates human rights. We must consider these facts to determine moral truth, not just opinions. Moral truths align with the facts.
By carefully analyzing our moral views through these lenses, we can work to overcome biases and discover objective moral truths—ethical principles that apply to all people in all situations. The search requires humility, honesty, and a commitment to reason, but it leads us closer to morality as it really is, not just as we suppose it to be.
The Case for Moral Realism
The idea of objective morality—that there are moral truths that exist independently of human opinion—is a controversial one. However, there are some compelling arguments in its favor.
Moral disagreements suggest objective morality
When two people disagree about a moral issue, they typically each believe the other person is mistaken. But if morality were purely subjective, no one would be wrong in such a disagreement. The fact that we think others can be mistaken in their moral judgments suggests that we believe in objective moral truth.
Moral progress is possible
If morality were subjective, moral progress would not be possible. Issues like civil rights and women’s suffrage could not represent moral improvements. But most of us believe that abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote are moral progress. This suggests objective moral standards by which we can judge progress.
Moral relativism has counterintuitive implications
Moral relativism implies that any moral view is as good as any other. This means tolerating horrific practices like genocide, slavery, and torture. But these acts seem objectively wrong. Moral relativism cannot account for why it should be universally condemned. Objective morality, on the other hand, can ground these universal moral judgments.
Evolution selected for moral beliefs that help society function
Evolution likely selected for moral beliefs and intuitions that help enable social cooperation and a stable society. While evolution influences our moral thinking, the resulting moral beliefs aim at objective moral truth—what helps society function. They are not merely useful illusions. Our moral intuitions point to objective moral facts, even if they are fallible.
In summary, moral disagreements, moral progress, the counterintuitive implications of moral relativism, and the link between evolution and objective morality all provide evidence that objective moral truth exists, whether or not we will ever fully grasp it. Moral realism seems like the most plausible view.
The Search for Universal Moral Truths
The search for universal moral truths is an age-old philosophical pursuit. As humans, we all seem to share some innate sense of right and wrong, of justice and fairness. But at the same time, moral codes can differ greatly across cultures, religions, and individuals.
So are there certain moral absolutes that apply to all people equally? Philosophers have debated this question for centuries. Some argue that morality is entirely relative and subjective. But others believe there are certain universal moral rules that transcend cultural norms. For example, nearly all societies prohibit unjustified violence, theft, deceit, and abuse. These types of acts seem to violate basic human rights and dignity, no matter what moral code you follow.
Moral reasoning
One way to uncover moral universals is through logical reasoning. For example, if I value my own happiness and fulfillment, I should also value the happiness and fulfillment of others. Causing unnecessary harm to someone else would be illogical and inconsistent. Using reason, some philosophers have derived “natural laws” like “treat others as you wish to be treated.” But moral reasoning alone may not lead us to definitive or universally agreed-upon answers.
There may not be a simple or single answer to the question of moral absolutes. Perhaps the search for universal moral truths points to certain broad principles, like compassion, justice, and human rights. But their specific application in practice will always depend on circumstances and cultural context. The debate continues, but one thing is clear: our shared humanity calls us to treat each other with dignity, empathy, and care.
Challenges to Finding Objective Morality
Finding objective morality—truths that apply to all people in all situations—is challenging in today’s world. There are a few reasons why:
Relativism
Many people believe that morality is relative to culture and circumstance. What’s right for you may not be right for others in different situations. This belief makes objective morality seem implausible. However, some actions, like murder, theft, and deception, are almost always considered wrong across cultures. Some moral rules do seem to transcend relativism.
Pluralism
There are many moral philosophies and frameworks to choose from. How can we determine which one is objectively right? While pluralism shows there are multiple ways of thinking about ethics, it does not prove that objective moral truth does not exist. We can evaluate moral philosophies based on logical consistency, real-world outcomes, and other factors.
Conflicting Values
Even if some moral rules are objective, values often conflict in practice. For example, honesty vs. compassion or individual rights vs. the greater good. Resolving such conflicts requires determining which value should take precedence in that situation based on the specifics of the case. This balancing act does not mean objective morality is impossible; it is just complex.
While finding objective and universal moral truths is challenging, that does not mean we should abandon the pursuit. We can evaluate moral ideas based on logical reasoning, real-world consequences, and consistency across cultures. And some moral rules, like prohibitions against violence and theft, do seem objectively right.
The existence of moral relativism, pluralism, and conflicting values shows morality is complex but does not prove objective moral truth is unattainable. With open and honest discussion, we can work to determine moral rules that should apply to all.
Philosophical Positions on Objective Morality
Philosophers have debated whether morality is objective or subjective for centuries. There are a few main positions on objective morality:
Moral Realism
Moral realists believe that moral statements are factual claims about the world and that some actions really are morally right or wrong, regardless of opinion. Moral facts exist independently of human beliefs and perceptions. For example, cruelty to animals may be morally wrong, even if some disagree.
Moral Relativism
Moral relativists argue that moral judgments depend on cultural and individual differences. There are no universal moral truths. What is morally right or wrong depends on society and the circumstances. For example, norms around sensuality and marriage vary across cultures.
Moral Nihilism
Moral nihilists think that moral statements have no truth value. Nothing is morally right or wrong, and moral concepts like ‘good’ and ‘bad’ have no meaning. Moral truths don’t exist. For moral nihilists, morality is a human construct that imposes arbitrary rules. They believe we would be better off rejecting moral judgments altogether.
Moral Skepticism
Moral skeptics are undecided on whether objective moral truths exist. They are skeptical that we can know for sure if morality is objective or subjective. Moral skeptics argue we lack sufficient evidence to make a definitive claim either way. They remain open-minded while doubtful that the debates around objective morality will be resolved.
As with many profound philosophical questions, there may never be a universally accepted answer regarding objective morality. But exploring the arguments on multiple sides of this issue can help clarify your own thinking on moral reasoning and decision-making. What do you think—is morality objective or subjective? The answer depends a lot on your view of human nature and metaphysical reality.
Examples of Commonly Accepted Moral Values
Objective morality refers to moral values that are considered universally right or wrong, regardless of personal opinion or cultural norms. Some examples of commonly accepted moral values include:
- Do no harm. Most societies and cultures uphold the moral value of avoiding harm to others. Physically hurting, killing, or damaging another person or their property is seen as morally wrong.
- Honesty.Lying, deceiving, and betraying others is typically seen as immoral behavior across cultures. Honesty and truthfulness are valued.
- Justice. Treating people fairly and equitably is an important moral principle. Discrimination, unfair punishment, and unequal treatment are seen as unjust and immoral.
- Compassion. Helping those in need and showing kindness towards others is morally valued in most societies. Lack of empathy or concern for suffering is seen as immoral.
While moral values are shaped by cultural and social norms, some values seem to transcend cultural differences and reflect universal human principles of right and wrong. Understanding these commonly held moral values can help foster cooperation and shared standards of decency between diverse communities.
Of course, there will always be disagreement on moral issues, and exceptions can be found. But in general, these types of moral values—avoiding harm, honesty, justice, and compassion—are commonly seen as objective moral goods. They form the basis for human rights and shape laws and social contracts in many societies.
The Role of Religion in Objective Morality
Religion is often cited as the source for moral rules and values. However, morality does not require religious belief. Objective morality can be determined through reason and logic alone.
Some argue that without God to define good and evil, morality loses all meaning. Yet we can look to human well-being to determine what is morally right and wrong. Causing unnecessary harm or suffering to others is morally wrong because it degrades human welfare and flourishing. Promoting human dignity, fairness, and thriving is morally good.
Certain actions, like murder, theft, and deception, have negative consequences for human well-being, regardless of religious doctrine. They violate objective moral standards based on the shared human experience. While religious teachings often reflect and reinforce these moral truths, they are not the sole source of morality.
For those who believe in God, objective moral rules could be seen as part of His creation, instilled in the human conscience and waiting to be discovered through reason and experience. But belief in a deity is not required to recognize moral truths or ethical virtues like compassion that uplift humanity.
Some argue that without eternal consequences like heaven or hell, people have no motivation to be good. Yet most act morally not out of fear of punishment but because goodness is rewarding in itself. We feel satisfaction from bringing joy to others and contributing value to the world. Objective morality provides meaning and purpose regardless of faith or lack thereof.
In summary, while religions frequently promote moral ideals, objective morality itself is independent of religious belief. Based on human well-being and flourishing, it can be discerned through reason and conscience. Morality gives life a deeper meaning, guiding us to act with compassion even without the promise of an eternal reward. Objective moral standards point to ethical truths beyond opinion, bringing people together around shared values that uplift humanity.
Cultural Relativism vs Moral Absolutism
Cultural relativism argues that moral rules are shaped by cultural norms and values, so there are no absolute or universal moral standards. What is right or wrong depends on culture and society. Moral absolutism, on the other hand, believes that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of circumstances or culture.
Cultural Relativism
According to cultural relativism, morality is determined by cultural norms and social conventions. What is morally right in one culture could be wrong in another. There are no universal moral rules.
• Cultural practices are relative to specific societies and times. Judgements of right and wrong depend on the cultural context.
• It promotes tolerance of cultural diversity and prevents ethnocentrism. We should not judge other cultures by our own standards.
• However, it makes it difficult to condemn atrocious practices like genocide, slavery, or human sacrifice that some cultures have practiced. Are these ever morally justified?
Moral Absolutism
Moral absolutists believe that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of circumstances or culture. There are universal moral rules that apply to all people and cultures.
• It provides a consistent moral code that does not vary by culture or time. Certain actions, like murder, theft, and cruelty, would always be wrong.
However, it does not account for difficult dilemmas where values come into conflict. It may also lead to intolerance as one judges other cultures by absolute moral standards.
• Examples of moral absolutism include certain religious doctrines like the Ten Commandments. They reflect universal moral rules, not just cultural norms.
In summary, while cultural relativism promotes tolerance, moral absolutism provides a consistent moral code. There are good arguments on both sides, and reasonable people can disagree on this complex issue. Finding the right balance between relativism and absolutism remains an open debate.
The Science Behind Moral Instincts
Our moral instincts are more than just opinions; they’re built into human nature. Scientists who study morality have found that humans are born with certain innate moral intuitions. These intuitions develop over time through both biological and cultural influences.
Some of the evidence for built-in moral instincts comes from studies of infants. Researchers have found that babies as young as 3 months old already prefer characters that help others over those that hinder others. By the time they’re toddlers, children show a sense of fairness and will protest perceived injustices.
Cultural factors also shape moral development. Things like parenting style, peer relationships, and exposure to moral lessons have been shown to influence a child’s growing sense of right and wrong.
Moral instincts are also linked to specific circuits in the brain, especially the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Damage to this part of the brain can impair moral reasoning and decision-making. Neuroimaging studies show that when people face moral dilemmas, this brain region is highly active. Our moral intuitions provide a kind of first draft for how to behave.
They give us an initial sense of what’s morally right or wrong in a situation. But these instincts can also be misguided, which is why moral reflection and reasoning are so important. We have to consider the reasons and principles behind our moral judgments, not just go with our gut.
Understanding the biological and psychological roots of human morality has important implications. It can help inform debates on topics like the relationship between science and ethics, moral relativism versus moral realism, and the degree to which morality is uniquely human. The science of morality shows that while we start with certain built-in moral intuitions, morality itself is shaped by a complex interplay between biology, psychology, culture, and rational reflection.
Developing a Shared Understanding of Right and Wrong
A shared understanding of right and wrong is essential for society to function. As humans, we have an innate sense of morality that develops over time through interactions with others. To develop a shared. morality:
Foster open communication.
Talk to others about why certain actions seem right or wrong. Discuss how different situations and contexts can affect moral decisions. Share experiences that have shaped your values. Through open and honest communication, we can gain insight into different perspectives and find common ground.
Promote empathy.
Try to understand others and see situations from multiple points of view. Put yourself in someone else’s shoes to understand why they think or feel the way they do about moral issues. With empathy, we can better understand the nuances of moral debates and find solutions that respect everyone. Empathy is key to developing shared values.
Focus on shared interests.
Rather than trying to impose your moral views on others, look for areas of agreement and shared interests. Most people want similar things like happiness, health, safety, and prosperity. Focus on the common good and how certain moral principles can benefit society as a whole. This can help build consensus and shared moral standards over time.
While moral debates often center around differences of opinion, we have more in common than divides us. By improving communication, promoting empathy, and focusing on shared interests, we can develop a stronger shared understanding of right and wrong. This is key to progress on moral issues and an equitable, just society. Morality is shaped by interactions with others, so together we can build a better shared sense of ethics.
What if there are no objective moral truths?
What if there are no objective moral truths? Some philosophers argue that morality is relative or subjective, varying by culture, individual, or circumstance. If this is the case, then there are no universal moral rules.
Consequences of moral relativism
Without objective morality, there can be no universal human rights or absolute wrongs. Relativism means that what’s morally right or wrong depends entirely on what a particular society or individual believes.
For example, some societies practice female genital mutilation, viewing it as a religious or cultural tradition. A moral relativist would say we cannot judge this as absolutely immoral. Relativism could also justify violence, oppression, or discrimination if a society deems it acceptable.
Moral relativism may lead to moral apathy or indifference. If there are no moral absolutes, why should. we care about injustice or human suffering? Relativism provides no motivation to condemn cruelty or improve moral standards.
An alternative to moral relativism
Moral absolutism holds that certain actions are always right or wrong, regardless of circumstances. While moral relativism claims morality is a social construct, moral absolutism believes some moral rules are universal-like prohibitions against murder, theft, lying, and cruelty.
Most ethicists argue that a middle ground between relativism and absolutism is possible. We can recognize some absolute moral rules, like prohibitions on cruelty, while allowing for cultural differences in other areas. Moral truths may be objective without being absolute. Perhaps some actions are immoral if they violate human well-being and dignity across all contexts.
Moral relativism is an extreme view that is problematic in many ways. There seem to be some universal moral rules most societies recognize. And even if morality is partly socially constructed, that does not mean we cannot make objective moral judgments or progress toward more ethical societies and moral standards over time. Moral truth may be complex, but it need not be entirely relative or subjective.
Conclusion
So there you have it. Objective morality isn’t just some philosophical musing or opinion. It’s real, and its existence matters. If morality were subjective, we couldn’t say certain actions like murder or theft were truly wrong. They’d just be matters of personal preference. But deep down, you know some actions are wrong, regardless of opinions or circumstances. You know inflicting cruelty on others just for enjoyment is wrong. You know kindness and compassion are good things, not just for yourself but for humanity as a whole.
Objective morality is the foundation for justice, human rights, and ethics. It’s what allows us to build a society with laws and social contracts. It’s the reason we can make moral progress over time on issues like slavery or civil rights.
So don’t dismiss objective morality as some abstract concept that doesn’t apply to the real world. It shapes everything from your daily interactions with others to the institutions and policies in our societies. It points us to a shared set of moral truths—if only we opened our minds to discover them.
References
- The Moral Instinct By Steven Pinker from The New York times Magazine
- 21 Moral Values All People Should Learn (with Examples) July 21, 2022 by Sarah Kristenson
- Are There Such Things as Objective Moral Truths?
Let’s boost your self-growth with Believe in Mind.
Interested in self-reflection tips, learning hacks, and knowing ways to calm down your mind? We offer you the best content which you have been looking for.