Morals are either just preferences or opinions, or laws that transcend what anybody wants or thinks.
The first is moral relativism, and the second—the alternative—is that morality is law: real, unchangeable, and binding. The first allows murder for a “good enough reason,” at least hypothetically; the second does not.
Moral relativists claim that what is right in one culture—such as widow-burning—is wrong in ours. This is obviously incoherent. While they deny that we should impose our morals on others, they are doing precisely that to anyone who says widow-burning is wrong, period.
Relativism being a mess does not automatically validate the view that morals are objective and unchangeable.
How do we know?
The idea that morality is objective seems to work to an extent, but it collapses under scrutiny. It depends on putting blinders on. Every situation is more complicated than we admit. So we simplify. We get practical. This shows we care more about doing something and calling it “the best” than actually pursuing the best. We may say that sometimes there is no time to put in the work. That may be true—but we cannot be trusted, nor expect others to trust us, if we say that is the case.
We need an example here.
Consider how much work individuals, families and communities do to discourage and stop serious corruption. Their hard work brings small rewards. But it is no time until the corruption is back. It has always been with us so it never really left. The rewards are deceiving - they never last. They are not a real sign of change, that something is working. The problem is how life is a moral treadmill - with no off-switch.
EVEN IF MORALITY IS REAL DOES ANYBODY CARE?
You never have a real reason to believe a person who claims that morality, justice, love, respect, and compassion are real, true, and sacred. They might only think they think it—and be wrong. They might lie to protect themselves from becoming targets of bullies if they admit uncertainty. And since when did thinking X make you sure of X anyway?
While it is true that nobody tuning into morality right, means that morality is false or incoherent, how can we tune in with all that error around us? How can we even want to look for it? Morality cannot be morality to us.
Nobody wants to go through life doubting everyone’s motives. There is a difference between respecting this on a personal, day-to-day level and expecting too much. For example: trust your neighbor to clear your drain, but if he wants to baptize you into his religion, walk away.
People say it is far from humble to ask others to trust you without evidence—but that is exactly what they are doing here! They are asking for that very trust. They are breaking their own morals to claim they have a good moral sense. They do this in daily mundane life and even more so regarding religious ideas.
Relativists and believers in objective morality share one thing in common: control. People who sense this rebel.
OBJECTIVE MORALITY UNDER PRESSURE
Let us test how objective morality breaks down under deep examination and testing.
Do you push a person on a track to derail a train that will kill five persons on the track?
One answer is that you cannot weigh life like that so do not push - one life matters as many and murder is never right.
The other is that you should push for it is not your fault that you have to and many lives matter more than one.
Each answer is a very big claim and the bigger the claim the more evidence you need. You actually would need logical proof. It does not exist so you have to make do with your prejudices, feelings and intuitions.
You might toss a coin!
No matter what you do, it is a grave evil. You are forced to feel you must do it - feel! To do evil under any circumstances on such a basis shows there is corruption in you.
Some say these conundrums occur only in extreme cases—but life is full of dilemmas. Mini “train problems” appear every day:
Do you profit your company to keep employees employed if the profit forces others out of their homes?
Do you let John drive a car with faulty brakes to reach the hospital, or risk him walking on a dangerous road?
Whether the dilemma is small or catastrophic, the problem is the same: If harm occurs whether you act or not, how do you choose? Toss a coin?
MORALITY FEEDS THE HATE IT CONDEMNS
Hate is often framed as hatred for actions, not people—but this is misleading. The “despicable action” is shorthand for a harmful person. The person saying, "I do not hate how this person is harmful, only their harmful acts" is making no sense. Language attacking the action is a diversion; the person is the real target.
Holy people may hate those they see as scandalous or morally defunct, but right does not have to be moral. Groups can be hated for being wrong in math or history. Moral relativists and objective moralists are equally capable of hate. We see so much hate around us over what is not a moral matter. It is insane to imagine that this does not easily turn into hate over moral issues.
Morality sounds like dressed-up passive aggression.
COSMETIC
Morality appeals to those who want answers—preferably easy ones—but it is not helpful. Relativism is irrational. Objective morality looks better on the surface—but it is skin-deep.
Those who defend objective morality often claim that denying its existence is self-contradictory, since to say “there are no objective moral truths” appears to make an objective moral claim. However, this argument assumes the very thing it sets out to prove—that moral claims must be objective to be meaningful. From a relativist standpoint, denying objective morality is not a moral statement at all but a descriptive one about how moral language functions within human cultures and perspectives. Therefore, the alleged contradiction only arises if one already accepts the framework of objective morality. Without that assumption, both positions simply rest on different foundational premises about the nature of moral judgment rather than on logical inconsistency.
FINALLY
Morality can do immense harm while claiming to uphold love and justice.
Morality claims to unify, but it cannot. It is luck that unifies - not morality. The moral injunction to be united with others as much as possible is unrealistic.
The “necessary evil” concept is at its core. It implies choosing the course that does the least harm. But morality cannot guarantee knowledge of intentions. Some actors have no good intentions, and we cannot reliably discern them.
Moralists do not agree with themselves. Morality does not agree with itself either.