Saying that morality is objectively true does not, by itself, tell us very much about what morality is like.
Objective morality could be binary, where actions are simply right or wrong, permitted or forbidden.
Or it could be graded or pluralistic, where actions can be better or worse, and where context, intentions, and consequences matter. In that case, morality is not just a list of “do” and “don’t” rules.
If morality is graded and meant to guide real-world decisions, a practical problem appears. When judging wrongdoing, we rarely know exactly what happened, what the person intended, or how responsible they were. Because of this uncertainty, punishment should be restrained and proportional. For example, many people prefer long prison sentences over the death penalty, or lighter punishment when error, drugs, coercion, or mental illness played a role. In some cultures, influence by demons or spirits is a consideration. Excessive punishment risks being unjust when facts are unclear.
Even if morality is objectively binary at the level of truth—meaning an action is either right or wrong—we do not have binary access to that truth. Our knowledge is incomplete and uncertain. Because of human fallibility, moral systems reasonably adopt caution and proportionality in punishment. This restraint follows from our limited knowledge, not necessarily from morality itself being non-binary.
In practice, the difference matters little. Whether morality is ultimately binary or graded, responsible moral agents must judge others cautiously, humbly, and proportionally.
Morality may feel richer than a simple yes-or-no system, but logic and evidence alone cannot conclusively prove that it is more than binary. Justice requires that punishment be based on evidence and reasoning, not on emotional reactions or moral psychology.
A purely binary moral system might ban actions like murder or violence without saying how bad they are. Under such a system, punishment would still need to be kept as minimal as possible, because we cannot know how much guilt or intent was involved. In fact, all moral models—binary or graded—tend to support minimal punishment for this reason.
To function at all, humans often act as if morality were binary, even if moral reality is more complex. Acting as if morality is binary does not mean believing that it actually is. It can be a practical tool rather than a metaphysical claim.
Because of this, it is unreasonable to strongly oppose people who adopt binary morality as a guide for action. Mild criticism or discussion is fine, but intense opposition is not justified. The same applies when people sincerely believe that objective morality itself is binary.
If a divine authority were to demand rejection of binary morality or its practical use, there would be no compelling reason to accept that demand. Some religious texts ordain that binary morality is inadequate and evil. For example by emphasizing sin, guilt, divine wrath and punishment. But that emphasis does not, by itself, show that binary morality is false—only that those traditions endorse a more complex moral framework. Such teachings can arouse rage and violence against supporters of binary morality - or at least the practice of it.
Religious teachings such as these deepen the harms and normalise them.
God saying that if man takes life, the man's own life is forfeit.
The claim that Jesus had to endure the cross to atone and cleanse sin.
The claim that animals have to shed their blood for human sins.
That unrepented sin takes one to Hell forever.
That the first sin, that of Adam and Eve, did us untold damage and their sin infused its rebellion and malice into us.
That Satan takes sin so seriously that he pleads with us all the time to engage with it.
That as Jesus said, we should hate sin so much that we - virtually if not literally - would remove a body part before sinning with it.
That God allows suffering to happen for he respects our free will to cause it but at the same time he labours for good to come from it.
That babies must be baptised and trained in the faith as they grow up.
When religious faith invents purely religious sins, such as blasphemy, heresy and missing Sunday Mass, it is no wonder if it harms.
The fact that the majority of religions - or religion-like systems such as Communism - decree how criminals are to be treated and are only guessing is very disturbing. Their power over most of the world must be broken.
Objective morality fails to tell us clearly how to deal with somebody who has done wrong. People are forced to have different opinions on what just treatment is. And the reality is, that systems of justice have prejudices - they base their punishments on what favoured people think. Remember, that getting it wrong with the harmer is getting it wrong with his victim too.
How religion has the nerve to effectively make God and objective morality two sides of the one coin, is a scandal. It has human projections and wishes written all over it.