Suppose objective morality is real.
A binary objective morality states that every possible action or state of affairs has a single, uniquely correct moral value:
1 = morally permissible/required,
0 = morally impermissible (and nothing in between).
It tells us nothing about how good or bad an act is.
Binary objective morality fits logic and there is no evidence against it.
Across nearly all important moral frameworks—deontological, consequentialist, virtue-ethical, contractualist, religious, secular—duty represents the floor of moral expectation, not the ceiling. Moral duty is minimal. A binary objective morality corresponds to the minimum moral duty. It follows that all moral frameworks imply that but fail to develop it.
Let us test if binary morality can be refuted. We look at the essential issues: metaphysical, semantic, epistemic, and practical coherence.
1. Metaphysical Coherence. This asks: Can such a thing exist without contradiction?
Permitted or Not Permitted is metaphysically coherent as long as:
There exists a mind-independent moral fact for each action. These facts do not have to explain themselves—they can simply be brute moral facts (like axioms). The binary structure doesn't contradict itself internally. Given these, the idea is not self-contradictory. It may be unappealing or unhelpful, but as a bare metaphysical model, it holds together.
2. Semantic Coherence asks: Do “yes/no” moral facts make sense conceptually? There is nothing semantically contradictory about a moral predicate that returns a Boolean value. Many moral theories ultimately do this:
Divine command theory: an action is either commanded or forbidden.
Some forms of deontology: an action violates a duty or it doesn’t.
Even utilitarianism could be “binarized” by a threshold rule (“maximize good; everything else is wrong”).
The semantics are coherent: a binary predicate is a simple logical operator applied to actions. The real issue is not conceptual coherence, but whether such simplicity captures moral reality—yet that is a different question.
3. Epistemic Coherence asks: Is it coherent to claim the facts exist even if they are epistemically inaccessible or uninformative?
Yes. Many domains work this way. Mathematical truths exist even if we can’t compute them. Physical constants exist even if we don’t know them. Counterfactual truths can exist even if unverifiable. Thus, claiming that a fully binary moral truth-value exists for all actions—even if humans can’t reliably know it—is epistemically coherent.
It becomes incoherent only if the theory claims both that objective binary facts exist and humans must be able to know them and yet they are unknowable.
If all you assert is (1), the position is fine. Coherence does not require knowability.
4. Practical Coherence
This asks: Can such a morality function as a normative system?
This is where binary morality often seems less coherent, because real actions have multiple morally relevant properties; compressing them into 0 or 1 “feels” too reductive. It cannot encode degrees of wrongness, trade-offs, dilemmas, partial duties, probabilistic risks, or multi-agent coordination unless you allow extra machinery behind the scenes.
But: impractical ≠ incoherent.
The theory can be coherently true yet pragmatically useless. We are not saying binary morality is useless - it bans stealing and so on. It is hypothetical. A coherent but uninformative truth structure is still a coherent truth structure.
5. Logical Coherence
To be logically coherent, the theory must not entail contradictions such as:
A ⇒ 1 and A ⇒ 0 simultaneously.
A situation where the moral system prescribes mutually exclusive actions (e.g., binary must prevent “you must do X” and “you must not do X” for the same action under identical conditions).
As long as the binary assignment is functionally consistent, the theory is logically fine.
The burden falls on the moral realist to specify what determines the 0 or 1—but logical coherence does not require them to explain why those facts obtain.
Bottom Line: Is Binary Objective Morality Coherent?
Yes.
A system of objective, binary moral truths is:
metaphysically coherent (no contradictions needed),
semantically coherent (Boolean predicates are simple),
epistemically coherent (truths need not be knowable), and
practically coherent (though not necessarily useful).
However:
Its main weakness is explanatory and normative richness, not coherence. People want morality to be more illuminating—so they judge the binary system “incomplete,” not incoherent.
JESUS OUT!
In a binary system a minimally decent person is a saint. We cannot grant that it says a morally perfect role model like Jesus would be as good as that person. Why? If Jesus went that far to confuse us - to blind us to how morality need only be basic and minimal is he really morally perfect? Arguably, we should be out doing basic good things all the time and making opportunities instead of thinking about a role model. The person chopping wood all day should not be looked down on for walking past the carpentry book.
The nature of God as an exemplar becomes non-essential to moral knowledge. Binary morality decouples knowing what is right from imitating divine nature.
Binary morality reduces guilt about not matching saints or prophets. Traditional religious ethics often involve feeling unworthy, striving to be “Christ-like”, aspiring to holy character, comparing ourselves to divine moral perfection and engaging in prayers/sacraments to help with that.
Binary morality removes comparison anxiety, performance pressure and despair about moral imperfection. Instead we have action-guiding commands and minimal moral compliance.
The gap between a binary morality and a God who endorses example and who may even be an example is huge. We will fill it with our own projections. How we outsource our notions and mirror them onto God is another conversation. God, to each person, is really an extension of who they are and it is not about any allegedly real God as such.
BINARY MORALITY VERSUS THE RELIGIOUS CENTRALITY OF PRAYER
Premises
Binary morality principle: In a binary objective morality, the only morally required actions are those necessary to meet the minimal duty threshold.
Duty criterion: An action is morally required only if failing to perform it causes one to fall below the minimal duty threshold.
Prayer in Christianity and Islam: Prayer is central and considered morally or religiously obligatory in these faiths.
Minimal duty evaluation: Performing prayer is not necessary to meet the minimal duty threshold (binary morality only considers basic duties such as avoiding harm, keeping promises, and helping others).
Conclusion
C1: Therefore, under binary objective morality, prayer is not morally required.
C2: Consequently, the moral requirements of binary morality contradict the centrality of prayer in Christianity and Islam.
C3: Hence, if morality is truly binary, focusing on basic good actions is required, while performing prayer is optional—even in traditions that treat it as central.