Objective Morality

There is really no room for debate over morality.

Every major religion, somewhere in its scriptures, has “The Golden Rule,” almost word for word: “Do unto others as you would be done by.”

In philosophy, Kant seems to have had the final word. He concluded that there is one thing that is bedrock certain in all the rational universe, his “categorical imperative.” He gave it in two main versions:

“Treat others as an end, not a means.”

And

“Act as you would wish all others to act.”

These can be seen to be reformulations of the Golden Rule.

So there is really nothing anywhere so certainly known as the essential difference between right and wrong. The only other proposition that comes close is the existence of God.

Granted, there can be disagreements on how this basic principle applies in some given instance. That is why we have moral traditions. Such matters must be discussed and debated, and over time, solid conclusions develop, like a body of jurisprudence. On these details, different traditions may come to differ. However, even here, in principle, one will in the end be right, and the other wrong, and that can be resolved by reference to the basic principle.

So why does everyone so often think, or claim, it is all up in the air? As a friend asked recently, “Isn't good defined by social attitudes?”

The confusion here is simply explained.

We are all conscious of having done immoral things. Aware of this, we have two choices: admit that we did wrong, or pretend that morality itself is somehow to blame.

A lot of folks would rather take the latter path.

Because it is not true, of course, it is in the end no solution. It only delays the reckoning.