Many debates about morality assume that proving objective moral truths would also tell us what is right or wrong. But that’s a misconception—and here’s why.
1. Morality can be framed in different ways
• Binary: Everything is either right or wrong. Clear, simple, decisive—but it ignores nuance, context, and intent.
• Spectrum: Actions have degrees of moral value. Richer, more complex, and context-sensitive—but harder to judge decisively.
2. Objectivity only tells us moral truths exist
Determining what is “right” or “best” in moral terms is inherently difficult because morality can be framed in fundamentally different ways. If we adopt a binary framework, every action is classified as either right or wrong, which provides clarity and decisiveness but oversimplifies reality by ignoring nuance, context, and intent. Conversely, a spectrum-based framework evaluates actions along a continuum of moral value, allowing for more nuanced and context-sensitive judgments, yet it complicates decisive evaluation and consensus. Because both frameworks have strengths and limitations, choosing one over the other does not allow us to definitively prove what is morally correct or superior; instead, moral reasoning often depends on the perspective and context in which it is applied.
Saying morality is objective doesn’t tell us:
• Which framework to use (binary or spectrum)
• How to weigh competing goods
• What counts as “good” or “bad” in specific situations
3. The conclusion
Even if morality is objective, it says nothing about its content. Objective morality gives structure, not answers. It’s like knowing a map exists without knowing the terrain it depicts.
In short: proving morality is real doesn’t solve moral disagreements. The how and what of morality still need careful reasoning.
Even if morality is objective, this does not entail that we can decisively label any specific act, including murder, as seriously immoral. Objective morality only establishes that moral truths exist, but it does not specify which framework—binary or spectrum—we should use, how to weigh competing goods, or what counts as morally “bad” in a particular context. Within a binary framework, one might classify murder as wrong, yet this ignores nuances such as intent, coercion, or mitigating circumstances; within a spectrum framework, the severity of immorality could vary depending on context, making it impossible to prove universally that the act is “seriously” immoral. Because objective morality informs structure rather than content, no argument from objectivity alone can conclusively demonstrate that a murderer’s act rises to the level of serious moral wrongdoing.
The murderer cannot know it was seriously wrong.
Objective morality could exist ontologically, but it cannot be epistemically accessed or verified by humans without becoming subjectively interpreted. I do that myself and I let others instill their own subjective moral notions into me. The more examples and preachers of morals, morals pass through before they get to me the worse it gets. Involving a God to represent or endorse or reveal it is shifting the subjectivity to him We will project our subjectivity unto him. And he needs interpreting too..