Key Definitions (to clarify the discussion)
Objective Morality
A moral standard that is true independently of personal beliefs, cultural norms,
or subjective preferences.
Binary Morality
A moral framework in which actions are strictly classified as either morally
right or morally wrong, with no degrees of correctness.
Probabilistic (or Gradient) Morality
A moral framework in which actions can be “mostly right” or “mostly wrong,”
admitting shades of moral correctness based on context, consequences, or
evidence.
Objective Immorality
A state in which an action violates an objective moral standard; typically
assumed to be categorical (fully wrong, not partially wrong).
Mathematical Error Analogy
The comparison between moral wrongness and a nearly correct mathematical
calculation (e.g., 99% correct but still technically incorrect).
THE ARGUMENT
If ‘objectively immoral’ is compared to a wrong mathematical result, does this comparison weaken the idea of objective morality? After all, a mathematical calculation can be almost correct—99% right—yet still yield the wrong answer. Does this analogy suggest that moral wrongness might also be a matter of degree?
The comparison between objective immorality and mathematical error is superficially appealing but ultimately flawed. In mathematics, correctness is binary: a calculation either produces the correct result or it does not. A result that is “99% correct” is not, strictly speaking, correct; it is an approximation or a partial success, but the underlying princcciple of mathematics demands exactness. Morality, in contrast, operates in a domain that is inherently evaluative and context-sensitive. To say an action is objectively immoral asserts that it violates a moral standard independent of circumstance, intention, or outcome.
Equating this to a nearly correct calculation misleads because moral wrongness does not admit partial credit. Unlike a numerical error, which can still produce useful approximations, an immoral act causes harm or injustice regardless of mitigating factors. To claim that an action is only “mostly immoral” dilutes the notion of moral responsibility. Consequently, the analogy collapses: the tolerance for near-rightness in mathematics has no counterpart in ethics, where wrongness is categorical.
In short, while both math and morality involve standards of correctness, the binary precision of mathematics cannot map cleanly onto the evaluative domain of moral action. Comparing an objectively immoral act to a nearly correct calculation is therefore fallacious: it ignores the qualitative, non-quantitative nature of ethical evaluation.
Hypothetically what if I have to literally forget one of these?
A morality that is not binary but mostly right like a calculation.
A morality that is binary but which can be wrong in what it condemns.
• A mostly-right, probabilistic or calculated morality (non-binary).
• A binary morality (good/evil) that could be wrong about some of what it condemns.
Key difference
This is essentially a choice between:
• Accuracy with uncertainty
vs.
• Certainty with possible false judgments
What happens if you forget each?
If you forget the probabilistic, mostly-right morality
You lose:
• Nuance
• The ability to revise moral beliefs with new evidence
• The flexibility to handle edge cases
• The sense that morality can be complex and contextual
You keep:
• Simple, clear rules
• Quick decisions
• Psychological comfort in certainty
Risk:
• You may wrongly condemn people or actions simply because the binary system mislabels them.
• Harder to adapt to new or ambiguous moral situations.
If you forget the binary but possibly wrong morality
You lose:
• The clarity and simplicity of fixed rules
• The emotional security that comes with black-and-white thinking
You keep:
• A morality that is more often correct
• The ability to update beliefs
• A framework that avoids false condemnation
• Compatibility with science, empathy, and real-world complexity
Risk:
• It can feel “less solid” or harder to act decisively.
• You may experience moral uncertainty more often.
⭐ So which one should you forget, hypothetically?
If your priority is truth, minimizing harm, and avoiding unjust condemnation, you would forget the binary morality that can be wrong.
Because false moral certainty can cause deep harm, especially when it mislabels people as bad or wrong.
If your priority is psychological clarity and simplicity, you might forget the probabilistic morality, though it would cost you accuracy.
The usual philosophical consensus
Most modern ethical theories (utilitarian, virtue ethics, contractualism) lean toward the nuanced, mostly-right model, because avoiding false condemnation is considered morally crucial.
But it depends on what values you want your moral system to serve.