Objective morality would be grounded by a circle, right is right and wrong is wrong. Objections say it is grounded by non-moral natural facts (moral naturalism - refutation, just because something is a natural fact doesn’t automatically make it morally right). Rational necessity (Kantian constructivism - refutation, makes morality contingent on rational construction, not ultimate or self-evident). Brute normative facts (non-circular but foundational - refutation, leaves morality as an arbitrary “given,” which doesn’t give us any explanatory insight). These positions may be controversial, but they are not obviously circular - though they are circles in their own way.
It is held that morality is a circle. Suppose it is. For that reason it leads to a binary morality.
It would be a paradox if all morality was ultimately grounded on, "right is right and wrong is wrong." Why? It seems to be a ground and yet not a ground - a circular argument would be normally useless.
If, for purpose of argument, it were a paradox, it would also lead to a binary morality.
Binary morality merely says, "Yes - you are good" or "No - you are bad." That is your reward and your punishment. The bare permission or denial of permission.
The murderer will be told he is wrong and evil but that is all. There is no robust condemnation as in going to jail for life.
One reason is that all versions of objective morality forbid condemning somebody on circular or weak grounds. None claims to prove what a murderer should suffer. They just decree a punishment anyway. Logically, the punishment should be as minimal as possible. This reason is about the person.
The other reason is about morality itself. If morality itself is based on a circle, that is all it tells us. So we only get a yes or no from it.
APPENDIX
Why a circular grounding of morality—like “right is right, wrong is wrong”—would necessarily produce a binary moral system rather than a nuanced, graduated system of ethics.
1. The Conceptual/Logical Argument
Premise: A circular moral grounding does not derive its authority from anything external; it is self-referential.
Implication: Self-reference can only affirm or deny the proposition itself.
“X is right” → true by the circle
“X is wrong” → true by the circle
Conclusion: There is no intermediate value between “right” and “wrong” because the circle doesn’t provide a metric, scale, or further criterion.
Example: Unlike utilitarianism, which weighs consequences, circular morality doesn’t measure “more right” or “less wrong.” It just says yes/no.
2. The Epistemic Argument
Premise: Circular morality is self-evident but non-informative beyond the affirmation of right or wrong.
Implication: It tells you nothing about degrees of blame, punishment, or moral responsibility.
Conclusion: Without extra justification, all moral agents are classified simply as “right” or “wrong.”
Example: A small lie and murder both just fall under “wrong”; the circle does not inherently distinguish them.
3. The Normative Authority Argument
Premise: If morality is grounded only in the circle, it has authority solely to declare what is right or wrong.
Implication: It cannot generate complex normative rules (like proportional punishment or moral credit) because that requires non-circular justification.
Conclusion: Morality can only say “Yes, you acted rightly” or “No, you acted wrongly”—hence binary.
4. The Reduction Argument
Think of circular morality as a minimal logical system.
In formal logic, if your axioms are just “Right is right, wrong is wrong,” there’s no room to generate additional structure (like degrees, consequences, or ethical subtleties).
Therefore, the system collapses to the simplest distinction: right/wrong.
This could connect to Kant’s idea of self-evident maxims, but with the twist that if you refuse rational derivation or natural facts, you are left only with yes/no.
5. The Psychological/Practical Angle
Premise: People naturally expect moral systems to guide actions.
Implication: If morality is circular and cannot justify degrees, the only guidance it provides is affirmation or denial.
Conclusion: Practical ethics becomes binary: you are either morally sanctioned or morally approved.
Example: For a murderer, the circular system can only say “wrong,” not prescribe jail, death, rehabilitation, or mercy, because any further step would require external justification.
6. Optional: Use a Metaphor
Circle = Binary Mirror:
Imagine morality as a mirror that reflects only itself. It cannot see anything beyond what it already contains.
It shows “right” or “wrong,” but no shades of gray.
This reinforces the idea that circular foundations inherently produce binary outcomes.
GOD
Even if we suppose that God is the ultimate source of objective morality, the problem of binary moral outcomes remains. If God alone determines what is right and wrong, then each action is judged solely by divine approval or disapproval: “X is right” or “X is wrong.” The authority of morality is thus grounded entirely in God’s will, much like the circular claim that “right is right and wrong is wrong.” While God’s nature might, in principle, allow for nuances such as mercy or proportionality, the minimal moral framework—without additional principles—cannot generate degrees of rightness, wrongness, or punishment. Consequently, morality remains fundamentally binary: it affirms an act or condemns it, granting only the bare acknowledgment of moral status rather than specifying the extent of reward, punishment, or ethical consideration. Even divine grounding does not escape the basic structure of yes/no moral judgment inherent in circular or self-referential moral systems.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, if morality is ultimately grounded in a circle—whether in the abstract “right is right, wrong is wrong” or in the authority of God—it inevitably produces a binary system. Such a framework can only affirm or deny the moral status of an action, offering no guidance on degrees of blame, reward, or punishment. The paradox of circular morality is that it serves as a ground without truly explaining why, leaving ethics stripped to a simple yes-or-no judgment. Even divine grounding, while potentially richer in principle, cannot escape this minimal structure without introducing external criteria. Thus, circular foundations of objective morality necessarily yield a binary moral outlook.