Objective morality refers to moral principles that are true and valid independently of anyone’s beliefs, feelings, or cultures—that is, moral facts that exist whether or not people agree with them.
Are we forced to say that morality is grounded in something, which is in turn grounded in something else, and so on without end—an infinite regress? Or must we instead claim that morality ultimately grounds itself, forming a kind of explanatory loop? There seems to be no definitive proof of which alternative is worse.
Both options pose serious philosophical challenges. An infinite regress threatens to make moral foundations endlessly deferred, never arriving at a final basis that can justify our moral claims. A self-grounding loop, on the other hand, risks circularity: if morality justifies itself, we may worry that it provides no real justification at all.
Which of these problems is more troubling remains an open question. Some thinkers argue that regress is harmless if each step adds clarity, while others insist that a well-structured circular system can still be coherent. In the absence of decisive evidence, the debate remains unresolved.
And cannot be. Ever.
If we may toss a coin, or just pick the one we like, we are calling morality arbitrary - albeit in a limited way. Either way, we make a feeling the deciding factor.
Why not say morality is grounded in something, which is grounded in something, which is grounded in something, forever? An infinite regress instead of a loop.“Morality is grounded in X₁, which is grounded in X₂, which is grounded in X₃…” ad infinitum.
Let’s unpack this carefully.
The reason philosophers are generally wary of infinite regresses in grounding is this:
• Explanatory problem:
• The point of grounding is to explain why something is the way it is.
• If morality is grounded in something, and that something in another thing, and so on infinitely, you never actually reach a final explanatory stop.
• Without a terminus, there’s no ultimate reason why morality holds. It’s like asking, “Why does this tower stand?” and being told, “Because of the block below it, and the block below that, and so on forever.” At some point, you want a foundation; otherwise, the explanation is incomplete.
• Practical problem:
• Infinite regress isn’t necessarily logically impossible, but it’s unhelpful for guidance. If you need to justify moral duties in practice, endlessly deferring their grounding makes morality untestable and unfalsifiable.
• Philosophical precedent:
• Philosophers often categorize these regress issues as either:
• Vicious regress: The chain fails to provide justification (seen as problematic).
• Benign regress: The chain could go on infinitely but doesn’t undermine explanation.
• Most moral philosophers treat an infinite regress of grounding as vicious because the very idea of grounding implies a stopping point where the chain actually gives a reason.
By contrast, a loop or circular grounding (e.g., morality grounded in rational agents who recognize morality, which depends on morality) is controversial but sometimes argued to be self-supporting, like a self-contained system. It at least closes the chain, even if it doesn’t “anchor” it in something external.
So, in short: an infinite regress is theoretically possible, but it fails to give a final explanatory reason for why morality holds, which is usually the very thing grounding is supposed to provide.
Here’s a clear list of why philosophers usually reject an infinite regress of moral grounding:
• Lack of ultimate explanation – An infinite chain never gives a final reason for why morality is valid.
• Vicious regress problem – Without a stopping point, the justification fails; the chain doesn’t actually ground anything.
• Practical uselessness – You can’t act on moral principles if their justification is endlessly deferred.
• Explanatory incompleteness – Grounding is supposed to explain; an infinite chain leaves the explanation incomplete.
• Contrast with foundations – Most theories prefer a foundational grounding (God, rationality, human flourishing) that stops the regress.
• Benign vs vicious regress distinction – Infinite regress can exist theoretically, but when it fails to provide real justification, it’s considered “vicious.”
• Difficulty in testing or defending – Moral reasoning becomes untestable if the chain never ends.
HYPOTHETICAL TEST
I have to literally forget a or b.
A The idea of morality grounding itself is not clear and looks like a circle.
B The idea of morality being grounded by infinite regress is strange but at least it is not like a circle.
Clearly you will forget A.
For further discussion: In theory, objective morality should be able to delegate its authority to humans. Can it if A or B is true? Can it if it needs to be a loop and that is against our nature? An objective morality that cannot delegate is not an objective morality at all.