-
Moral realism (objective morality): Some moral claims are true independently of what anyone thinks (e.g., “torturing for fun is wrong is true even if a society approves it”)
-
Anti-realism / subjectivism: Moral truth depends on human attitudes, emotions, culture, or practical frameworks (so morality is not objective in the same way as physics)
both are true in part, but only language splits them into camps
Some people may defend objective morality because they want to say that some acts are wrong apart from opinion, law.
Note (2026 Feb)
If morality depends only on opinion, a moral dispute becomes a dispute about taste.
In that view, it is hard to say that a person makes an error.
One can only say that the person has another opinion.
The claim of objective morality gives another frame.
It lets us say that an act can be wrong even when a group accepts it.
It also lets us say that a community, state, or majority can be in error.
This claim also supports the idea of moral change as progress.
Example: the end of slavery.
Without a point of reference beyond opinion, it is harder to mark progress from change.
Objective morality also supports critique of violence, oppression, and harm.
It gives a language for judgment of an act, not only a report of human reaction.
Open question
If moral facts exist, how does a person get access to them? or How do I reduce error in moral judgment?
- A person learns from pain, loss, care, trust, and conflict.
- A person tests claims by logic, consistency, and universal form.
- A person has direct moral seemings.
- A person receives moral forms from family, law, religion, school, and custom.
- A person compares views with others, including people outside the group.