If objective morality is a circle a paradox does it permit me to create ones of my own? Can I steal gold and say that normally that is objectively wrong but because an exception has been made for me it is objectively good. Maybe it is neither right or wrong in this circumstance?
REPLY: Even if objective morality were paradoxical or circular, that doesn’t automatically mean anything goes. A flaw in one system does not grant unlimited permission to assert contradictions. You are creating a morality of your own in defiance of objective morality. There is a difference between objective morality that moral claims are true independently of individual opinions. And personal morality that is moral rules you adopt or invent. Paradox doesn’t justify contradiction. A paradox is a puzzle where something looks incoherent but a contradiction is outright nonsense. If paradox allowed that, then every moral claim and its opposite would be equally valid — which destroys the concept of “moral” altogether.
In logic, there’s a rule called the principle of explosion. It basically says that if a system has a contradiction, then technically anything can be “proven” from it. For example, if you somehow accepted that “A is both true and false,” you could logically argue that “2+2=5”—even if those things are obviously not true.
But in real life, especially when we’re talking about morals or ethics, just noticing a contradiction in someone’s argument doesn’t mean anything goes. It doesn’t give you a free pass to do whatever you want. Contradictions don’t magically make every action okay. The reason is that the contradiction is not real - it is only a flaw arising from human thinking or opinion. However, there would be explosion if morality were objective and really did decree that a murder was right and not-right.
Here are positions that do work logically. Moral nihilism: There are no moral facts at all. Moral relativism: Moral rules depend on cultures or frameworks. Subjectivism: Moral judgments express personal attitudes. In those views, you could say that “I personally don’t believe stealing gold is wrong.” But you cannot say, “It is objectively moral for me to steal gold” while also denying objective morality. That’s a self-defeating claim.
For that reason, you cannot say you have an exemption to do wrong without overthrowing objective morality.
APPENDIX
A paradox will allow:
Skepticism about whether morality is objective at all.
Discussion about alternative systems of ethics.
It does not allow arbitrary declarations that automatically become universally true.
Objective morality would basically turn into personal preference disguised as objectivity. In other words: the concept of objective morality would become useless because it no longer constrains behavior.
BUT WHAT IF OBJECTIVE MORALITY PERMITTED ME HYPOTHETICALLY IN A ONCE-OFF TO STEAL THE GOLD?
It would still make it unstable and useless. The hypothetical is a good test. If I would steal the gold then, then objective morality is proven wrong for saying "right is right". It would mean my exemption is put before right. And it is not just stealing. I am told I come first when there are other people who matter too.