Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Moral objectivism

Moral objectivism is the metaethical view that certain moral claims are true or false independently of any individual's attitudes, cultural conventions, or subjective preferences, positing the existence of objective moral facts or standards that determine right and wrong.^[1] This position contrasts sharply with moral subjectivism or relativism, which deny such independence by tying morality to personal feelings or societal norms.^[2] Proponents argue that moral objectivism underpins genuine moral disagreement and progress, as evident in widespread condemnation of practices like slavery across history, implying a shared recognition of transcultural wrongs rather than mere opinion divergence.^[1] Key defenses of moral objectivism include intuitive appeals to the apparent truth of basic moral propositions—such as the wrongness of gratuitous torture—and epistemological arguments that moral knowledge functions similarly to other domains like mathematics or science, where beliefs track independent realities.^[3] Empirical studies further bolster this by revealing a strong "folk" tendency toward objectivism, where ordinary people judge core moral violations (e.g., harming innocents) as objectively wrong, irrespective of context or consensus, challenging claims of pervasive relativism in intuition.^[4] Influential modern articulations, such as those emphasizing non-naturalist realism, reject reduction to empirical or supernatural explanations while maintaining that moral properties supervene on natural facts in a way that preserves their normative force.^[2] Despite these supports, moral objectivism faces controversies from skeptics who cite persistent cross-cultural variances in ethical practices as evidence against universality, though objectivists counter that such diversity often reflects error or incomplete grasp of objective truths rather than their absence.^[1] Critics in relativist traditions, prevalent in some postmodern academic frameworks, argue it imposes ethnocentric judgments, yet this is rebutted by the position's commitment to reasoned convergence toward truth, akin to scientific paradigms resolving disputes over time.^[3] Defining characteristics include its implications for ethics, jurisprudence, and human rights, where objective standards enable criticism of regimes or ideologies that violate them, fostering accountability beyond power dynamics or consensus.^[1]

Definition and Distinctions

Core Definition

Moral objectivism is the meta-ethical position that moral facts exist independently of human minds, beliefs, or social conventions, such that certain actions or states of affairs are inherently right or wrong regardless of what individuals or cultures approve or disapprove.^[1]^[5] This view asserts that moral claims, like factual statements, can be true or false based on their correspondence to an objective reality, not merely expressive of personal sentiments or subjective preferences.^[6] Proponents argue that moral objectivity implies a single set of principles governing permissibility, applicable universally, as evidenced in classical formulations where virtues or duties derive from rational insight into human nature or the structure of reality.^[5]^[7] Unlike subjectivism, which reduces morality to individual attitudes, objectivism maintains that moral truths are discovered rather than invented, often through reason or observation of consequences in the natural world.^[1] For instance, claims such as "torture for pleasure is wrong" hold true even if a society endorses it, because the wrongness stems from mind-independent features like harm to rational agents or violations of natural teleology.^[5] This stance aligns closely with moral realism, which posits that moral properties are part of the fabric of the world, knowable via cognition, though objectivism emphasizes resistance to relativization across contexts.^[8] Empirical support for intuitive objectivism appears in cross-cultural studies showing widespread convergence on core prohibitions, such as against gratuitous cruelty, suggesting an underlying objective basis rather than arbitrary cultural variance.^[4] Objectivists like Plato and Aristotle grounded morality in objective forms or eudaimonic flourishing tied to human essence, predating modern debates but establishing the view's foundational logic.^[7] Contemporary defenses, such as those by Russ Shafer-Landau, reinforce this by arguing moral facts supervene on natural properties without reducing to them, preserving normativity while committing to realism about values.^[7] Critics within philosophy often challenge detectability of such facts, but objectivists counter that motivational internalism fails empirically, as moral beliefs can guide action without necessitating desire-based reduction.^[1]

Distinction from Relativism and Subjectivism

Moral objectivism maintains that certain moral claims are true independently of any individual's beliefs, attitudes, or subjective states, as well as irrespective of cultural or societal consensus.^[1]^[5] This position contrasts sharply with moral subjectivism, which holds that the truth of a moral statement depends entirely on the personal feelings, desires, or approvals of the individual making the judgment; for instance, under subjectivism, an action is right for one person if they approve of it, even if others disapprove, rendering moral disagreement merely a clash of subjective preferences without objective resolution.^[1] Objectivists argue that this renders subjectivism unable to account for moral progress or criticism across differing personal views, as there would be no external standard to deem one perspective superior.^[5] Moral relativism, often divided into cultural or descriptive forms, posits that moral truths are relative to specific social groups, historical contexts, or traditions, such that what is morally right in one culture may be wrong in another without either being objectively erroneous.^[9] Objectivism rejects this by asserting the existence of universal moral facts that transcend cultural boundaries, allowing for genuine cross-cultural moral evaluation; for example, practices like slavery or genocide would be objectively wrong regardless of societal endorsement in any era.^[1] While relativism accommodates apparent moral diversity by tying validity to group norms, objectivists contend this leads to intolerable consequences, such as the inability to condemn atrocities in cultures that historically tolerated them, undermining any basis for moral reform or international human rights standards.^[9] Empirical studies on folk intuitions also indicate widespread implicit endorsement of objectivism, with participants across cultures judging moral violations as objectively wrong rather than merely conventional, challenging relativist assumptions about variability.^[4] The distinctions highlight orthogonal dimensions: objectivism opposes both subjectivism (mind-dependence) and relativism (group-dependence) by grounding morality in mind-independent facts, whereas subjectivism and relativism share anti-objectivist commitments but differ in scope—individual versus collective. Critics of relativism and subjectivism within objectivist frameworks emphasize that these views collapse under scrutiny from first-person moral experience, where individuals intuitively perceive moral obligations as binding beyond personal or cultural whim, as evidenced in philosophical defenses prioritizing rational consistency over contingent approval.^[5]

Historical Foundations

Ancient and Classical Roots

Socrates (c. 469–399 BCE), through dialogues recorded by Plato, initiated systematic ethical inquiry by positing that virtue is knowledge and that moral truths are discoverable through dialectical reasoning, implying an objective standard of goodness independent of individual opinion or cultural convention.^[10] This approach rejected sophistic relativism, emphasizing that akrasia (weakness of will) stems from ignorance rather than mere preference, thus grounding ethics in rational apprehension of universal moral facts.^[11] Plato (c. 428–348 BCE) extended Socratic objectivism metaphysically via the Theory of Forms, asserting in works like the Republic that the Form of the Good exists as an eternal, non-contingent reality from which all particular virtues derive their essence and normativity.^[12] Moral knowledge, for Plato, involves intellectual ascent to these Forms through philosophy, enabling objective justification of justice and the good life against subjective or relativistic alternatives.^[10] Aristotle (384–322 BCE), critiquing Plato's separation of Forms from the sensible world, anchored moral objectivism in teleological biology and empirical ethics, as detailed in the Nicomachean Ethics. He argued that human flourishing (eudaimonia) consists in actualizing the ergon (function) proper to rational beings—virtuous activity in accordance with reason—which yields objective criteria for virtues like courage and justice, calibrated by the doctrine of the mean and observable human nature rather than arbitrary decree.^[13] This framework treats moral norms as rooted in facts about human telos, discoverable through phronesis (practical wisdom) and cross-cultural consistency in basic ethical intuitions.^[11] In the Hellenistic era, Stoicism, founded by Zeno of Citium (c. 334–262 BCE), synthesized these strands into a cosmopolitan ethics where moral objectivity derives from alignment with the rational cosmos (logos), making virtue (arete) the sole intrinsic good and universally binding irrespective of circumstance or sentiment.^[14] Roman Stoics like Cicero (106–43 BCE) further elaborated this in De Legibus, framing natural law as an objective, divine order imprinted on human reason, antecedent to positive laws and evident in shared moral precepts across societies.^[15] Such views influenced later conceptions of universal rights and duties, prioritizing causal necessity in nature over cultural variability.

Medieval and Scholastic Developments

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD), whose works profoundly shaped medieval moral thought, advanced an objective moral framework by positing eternal law as rooted in God's unchanging nature, with human morality discerned through divine illumination of the intellect.^[16] This view held that moral truths, such as the ordered love of God above all (ordo amoris), exist independently of human opinion, as evil constitutes a privation of inherent goodness rather than a substantive entity.^[16] Augustine's emphasis on moral realism—where objective values and duties are evident in moral experience and require grace to overcome sin's impairment—influenced subsequent scholastics by establishing a divine foundation for ethics beyond subjective will.^[16] Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109), an early scholastic, further developed objective moral standards through his concept of justice as "rectitude of the will preserved for its own sake" (rectitudo voluntatis propter se servata), outlined in works like De Veritate (c. 1080–1085).^[17] For Anselm, moral rightness inheres in the will's alignment with intrinsic goodness, independent of outcomes or external rewards, thereby grounding ethics in an objective order where deviation constitutes injustice or sin.^[17] This framework, connecting justice to moral evaluation and human freedom, rejected relativism by tying rectitude to God's eternal justice, influencing later debates on will and virtue.^[17] The high scholastic synthesis peaked with Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) in his Summa Theologiae (1265–1274), where natural law theory explicitly affirmed moral objectivism by deriving universal precepts from eternal law—God's rational governance of creation.^[18] Natural law represents rational creatures' participation in this eternal order, apprehended through synderesis, an innate habit grasping self-evident first principles like "good is to be done and pursued, and evil avoided" (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 94, a. 2).^[19]^[20] Aquinas specified objective applications, such as inclinations to preserve life, procreate, seek knowledge, live sociably, and act rationally, rendering acts like killing the innocent or lying intrinsically wrong regardless of circumstance (Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 94, a. 2–3; II-II, q. 64, a. 6).^[18] This integration of Aristotelian teleology with Christian theology yielded a robust, reason-accessible moral objectivity, countering voluntarism by rooting norms in human nature's divinely ordained ends.^[20]

Enlightenment and Modern Evolutions

Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics represented a cornerstone of Enlightenment-era moral objectivism, grounding universal moral duties in pure reason rather than empirical observation or divine authority. In his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Kant formulated the categorical imperative as an objective principle: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."^[21] This a priori requirement demands that moral agents test actions for consistency across all rational beings, independent of personal inclinations or cultural variances, thereby establishing morality as binding and non-contingent.^[21] Kant's framework, detailed further in the Critique of Practical Reason (1788), emphasized autonomy—self-legislation through reason—as the source of moral obligation, influencing subsequent secular defenses of objective norms by prioritizing rational universality over sentimental or relativistic alternatives.^[21] While empiricist Enlightenment figures like David Hume questioned strict objectivism by deriving morality from sentiments, Kant's rationalism preserved and advanced objectivist commitments amid the era's broader turn toward human reason as arbiter of truth.^[22] This development laid groundwork for modern secular variants, as it decoupled moral realism from theistic premises dominant in prior scholastic traditions, instead rooting objectivity in the structure of rational agency itself.^[23] In the 19th and early 20th centuries, moral objectivism evolved amid challenges from idealism, historicism, and emerging relativism, yet persisted through refined metaethical analyses. Henry Sidgwick's The Methods of Ethics (1874) sought objective reconciliation of egoism, intuitionism, and utilitarianism, arguing for impartial hedonism as a rational, universal standard verifiable through ethical reflection. G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica (1903) advanced non-naturalist objectivism by positing "good" as an indefinable, objective property apprehended via intuition, rejecting reduction to natural terms and countering subjectivist reductions. These efforts maintained objectivism's viability against Nietzschean critiques of moral foundations, emphasizing irreducible ethical truths. The 20th century witnessed a robust resurgence of secular moral realism, particularly in analytic philosophy, as responses to non-cognitivism and emotivism reaffirmed objective moral facts. Naturalist realists like Peter Railton argued that moral properties supervene on natural facts, such as human flourishing, allowing empirical discovery without supernaturalism; Railton's 1986 paper defended this by analogy to theoretical terms in science, where moral claims track objective relational properties. Concurrently, Ayn Rand's Objectivism, systematized in works like The Virtue of Selfishness (1964), posited objective ethics derived from metaphysical reality and human life as the standard of value, with rational self-interest as the moral code—framed as a direct heir to Enlightenment rationalism.^[24] This era's evolutions, peaking post-1950, integrated evolutionary biology and cognitive science to bolster claims of innate moral universals, countering cultural relativism with evidence of convergent ethical intuitions across societies.^[25] Secular moral realism thus solidified as a dominant metaethical position by century's end, prioritizing causal efficacy of moral facts in explaining agreement and motivation without invoking theistic grounds.^[26]

Arguments Supporting Objectivism

Metaphysical and Ontological Foundations

Moral objectivism asserts the existence of moral facts as objective constituents of reality, ontologically distinct from subjective attitudes or cultural constructs. These facts are typically understood as properties or states of affairs that obtain independently, exerting normative force irrespective of contingent beliefs. In this framework, ontology includes irreducibly normative entities, often aligned with ethical non-naturalism, where moral properties supervene on non-moral, descriptive facts—such as physical or psychological states—but are not identical or reducible to them, preserving their sui generis status.^[3] A central metaphysical claim is that moral properties are non-natural, meaning they fall outside the domain of empirical sciences and possess intrinsic normativity that guides rational agency. Russ Shafer-Landau defends this view, arguing that moral facts are mind-independent and universally applicable, with causal efficacy derived from the descriptive bases on which they supervene; for instance, the wrongness of an act like gratuitous harm instantiates through underlying natural events but remains ontologically distinct. He invokes the open question argument to refute reductionism: even if a candidate natural property (e.g., maximizing pleasure) is proposed as identical to goodness, the query "Is this good?" remains meaningfully open, indicating non-identity. This irreducibility avoids collapsing morals into mere empirical regularities, positing instead fundamental normative truths embedded in reality's structure.^[3] Ontological arguments further bolster this by demonstrating the necessity of objective moral reasons. Michael Huemer presents a proof leveraging consensus on specific obligations, such as the categorical wrongness of recreational infant torture, which nearly all rational agents affirm as providing non-selfish reasons against it. Given philosophical surveys indicating substantive support for moral realism (e.g., 56% acceptance in the 2020 PhilPapers survey), and the principle that probabilistic belief in a proposition conferring reasons transmits those reasons, Huemer concludes that at least some objective, stance-independent moral reasons exist. This establishes moral realism ontologically, as the existence of such reasons—categorical and non-contingent—requires their inclusion in the world's furniture, akin to undeniable logical necessities.^[27]^[28]

Epistemological Justification

Epistemological justification for moral objectivism posits that humans possess reliable cognitive access to objective moral truths, primarily through rational intuition and reflective methods analogous to those in mathematics or logic. Proponents argue that basic moral propositions, such as the wrongness of intentionally causing gratuitous suffering to innocents, are self-evident upon rational reflection, providing noninferential justification similar to axiomatic knowledge in other domains. This view, defended in Russ Shafer-Landau's Moral Realism: A Defence (2003), combines intuition with reliabilist epistemology, where moral beliefs formed by a properly functioning faculty of intuition track independent truths, much as perceptual beliefs track empirical facts.^[29] Such access avoids skepticism by treating moral intuition as a basic source of warrant, defeasible only by overriding evidence rather than inherent unreliability.^[30] Ethical intuitionism further bolsters this justification, maintaining that objective moral truths are apprehended directly via an intellectual faculty, yielding prima facie justified beliefs without requiring empirical verification or inferential chains. Michael Huemer's Ethical Intuitionism (2005) articulates this as immediate awareness of moral facts, paralleling phenomenological conservatism in epistemology, where appearances justify unless defeated; for instance, the intuition that torturing innocents for sport is wrong stands as justified unless compelling counter-reasons emerge.^[31] This approach counters evolutionary debunking arguments by emphasizing that intuition's reliability need not stem from adaptive utility but from its alignment with truth-tracking mechanisms, akin to logical intuition's independence from survival benefits. Critics of intuitionism often demand empirical validation, but objectivists retort that such demands beg the question against non-naturalist domains, as rational insight suffices for abstract necessities.^[32] Companions-in-guilt strategies provide additional warrant by linking moral epistemology to epistemic normativity, arguing that access to moral facts mirrors access to facts about justification or rationality. Terence Cuneo's The Normative Web (2007) contends that moral and epistemic facts share normative structure and phenomenological similarity; denying knowledge of the former entails skepticism about the latter—e.g., the fact that evidence justifies belief—which is untenable given everyday epistemic practice. Thus, since we reliably discern epistemic reasons (e.g., that circular arguments fail to justify), parity implies reliable discernment of moral reasons (e.g., that betrayal wrongs). David Enoch's Taking Morality Seriously (2011) extends this via deliberative indispensability: rational deliberation presupposes objective normative truths, as rejecting them undermines practical reasoning itself; hence, our epistemic grip on moral facts is justified by their necessity for coherent agency.^[33] These arguments collectively affirm that moral objectivism evades epistemological isolation by integrating with broader rational norms, without collapsing into subjectivism or skepticism.^[34]

Empirical and Evolutionary Evidence

Cross-cultural studies reveal consistent patterns in moral judgments, such as widespread condemnation of harm to innocents and fairness violations, observed in dilemmas like the trolley problem across 42 countries involving over 70,000 participants, indicating potential universal cognitive mechanisms rather than purely cultural constructs.^[35] Evolutionary psychology posits that these universals arise from adaptive pressures favoring cooperation and reciprocity in ancestral environments, with moral intuitions like aversion to incest or altruism toward kin emerging as heritable traits that enhanced fitness, as evidenced by comparative primatology and genetic modeling.^[36] Twin studies further support a genetic foundation for moral cognition, estimating heritability of prosocial behaviors and moral foundations (e.g., care/harm, fairness/cheating) at 30-50%, with monozygotic twins showing greater concordance in judgments of dishonesty acceptability than dizygotic pairs, suggesting an innate substrate not fully reducible to environmental variation.^[37]^[38] Neuroscience data indicate dedicated brain networks for moral processing, including the prefrontal cortex and temporoparietal junction, which activate similarly across individuals during objective harm assessments, independent of personal beliefs, as shown in fMRI studies linking these regions to intuitive moral evaluations that precede deliberate reasoning.^[39] Empirical investigations into folk metaethics demonstrate that individuals, including children, perceive core moral properties (e.g., "wrong to harm") as objectively true more than subjective tastes or conventions, with objectivist intuitions strongest for injustice-involving actions, correlating with reduced tolerance for disagreement.^[4]^[40] Moral Foundations Theory, derived from cross-cultural surveys, identifies innate modules for intuitions like loyalty and authority as near-universal, though weighted differently, providing evolutionary grounding for objective moral realism over relativism.^[41] These findings collectively suggest that human moral capacities reflect evolved, biologically rooted responses to real causal structures in social reality, such as kin selection and reciprocal altruism, rather than arbitrary cultural inventions.^[42]

Criticisms and Counterarguments

Cultural Relativism Challenges

Cultural relativism challenges moral objectivism by maintaining that ethical norms derive from societal conventions rather than any independent, universal truths, implying that moral disagreements across cultures reflect irreconcilable frameworks rather than errors in judgment. This position, advanced by anthropologists like Franz Boas and his students, posits that morality functions as a set of culturally approved habits, with no overarching standard to adjudicate between them. As Ruth Benedict argued in 1934, "morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits," rejecting the idea that ethical principles stem from fixed human nature.^[43] Empirical observations of moral diversity provide the primary evidential basis for this challenge. For example, among the Inuit (Eskimos) of the Arctic, infanticide—particularly of female infants—was a widespread practice necessitated by food scarcity, high infant mortality, and the physical burdens of nomadic hunting; ethnographic accounts describe cases where women killed up to half their children to ensure group survival, viewing it as a pragmatic moral duty rather than murder.^[44]^[45] In contrast, such acts are universally condemned in modern Western legal systems as violations of intrinsic human rights. Similarly, the ancient Callatians consumed the bodies of their deceased parents as a funeral rite, a custom abhorrent to Greeks who preferred cremation, illustrating fundamentally opposed views on respect for the dead.^[44] Benedict's comparative analysis of Pacific Northwest societies further exemplifies this variability. Among the Kwakiutl, retaliatory killings were not only tolerated but celebrated following a tribesman's death; a chief might lead raids resulting in the deaths of multiple enemies, including children, and return with a sense of elation deemed "favored and fortunate" within their cultural configuration, whereas equivalent behavior in Western contexts would classify the actor as psychologically deviant.^[43] The Dobuans, by contrast, interpreted success as evidence of sorcery, fostering a moral ethos of suspicion and treachery that prized paranoia as adaptive. These divergences undermine moral objectivism's claim to transcultural validity, as relativists contend that persistent ethical pluralism—without convergence through rational deliberation—indicates morals as adaptive cultural products rather than objective discoveries.^[44] If objective morals existed, relativists argue, they would manifest uniformly or yield to reasoned correction, yet practices like Inuit polygamy and wife-sharing, or Kwakiutl megalomania, endured as normative without internal collapse.^[43]^[44] Consequently, objectivist condemnations of foreign customs risk ethnocentrism, as no neutral vantage exists to privilege one code over another; as 19th-century sociologist William Graham Sumner phrased it, "the notion of right is in the folkways... whatever is, is right."^[44] This framework thus renders universal moral assertions untenable, prioritizing descriptive cultural variance over prescriptive absolutes.

Subjectivist and Postmodern Critiques

Subjectivist critiques of moral objectivism assert that moral judgments derive their validity from individual attitudes, emotions, or preferences rather than from mind-independent facts.^[1] Proponents argue that what is deemed morally right or wrong varies with personal sentiment, rendering objective moral truths illusory or nonexistent.^[46] A prominent variant, emotivism, posits that moral statements do not describe objective states but serve to express and influence emotional responses; for instance, A.J. Ayer in Language, Truth and Logic (1936) classified ethical assertions as pseudo-propositions lacking cognitive content, functioning instead to vent feelings or prescribe attitudes.^[47] C.L. Stevenson extended this view, emphasizing how moral language dynamically shapes interpersonal attitudes rather than reporting verifiable facts.^[48] J.L. Mackie's error theory represents a radical subjectivist challenge, contending that ordinary moral discourse presupposes the existence of objective, categorically prescriptive values, yet no such values obtain in reality, making moral claims systematically erroneous.^[49] In Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (1977), Mackie advanced the "argument from queerness," asserting that objective moral properties would need to be intrinsically action-guiding—motivating compliance regardless of desires—while remaining ontologically independent, a combination he deemed metaphysically bizarre and unsupported by empirical observation.^[50] He supplemented this with an "argument from relativity," highlighting persistent moral disagreements across cultures as evidence against convergence on objective truths, suggesting instead that moral beliefs arise from evolved social practices rather than discovery of external norms.^[49] Postmodern critiques extend subjectivism by dismantling the epistemological groundwork of moral objectivism, portraying purported universal morals as constructs of language, power, and historical contingency rather than discoveries of enduring reality.^[51] Jean-François Lyotard characterized postmodernity in The Postmodern Condition (1979) as marked by "incredulity toward metanarratives," rejecting overarching frameworks—including objective moral systems—that claim universal legitimacy, and favoring localized, narrative-specific justifications instead.^[52] Michel Foucault's genealogical method, as in Discipline and Punish (1975), deconstructs moral norms as products of disciplinary power regimes, where concepts like justice or virtue emerge from institutional discourses aimed at normalization and control, not from rational or transcendental foundations.^[53] Jacques Derrida's deconstruction further undermines fixed moral meanings, arguing that binary oppositions (e.g., good/evil) in ethical language harbor instabilities that reveal their contextual relativity, precluding stable objective referents.^[52] These approaches collectively imply that moral objectivism reflects a naive faith in stable truth, overlooking how knowledge and values are interwoven with contingent socio-historical forces.^[54]

Rebuttals and Empirical Refutations

Critics of moral objectivism, particularly proponents of cultural relativism, argue that moral norms vary irreconcilably across societies, implying no objective standards exist. However, ethnographic analyses contradict this by identifying consistent moral universals tied to cooperation and survival needs. A comprehensive review of 60 societies spanning six continents found seven recurrent rules—help your family, help your group, return favors, be brave, defer to superiors, divide disputed resources fairly, and respect others' property—present in all examined cultures, suggesting these norms arise from universal human social imperatives rather than cultural whim.^[55] Extending this, a 2024 machine-learning study of ethnographic texts from 256 societies confirmed these cooperation-oriented morals appear in the majority of cases across diverse regions, with variations in emphasis but not absence, refuting the notion of morality as purely local invention.^[56] A 2020 study of moral decision-making in 42 countries further revealed universals in judgments on harm, fairness, and loyalty, alongside cultural variations in parochialism, indicating a shared cognitive architecture for moral evaluation rather than subjective or relativistic divergence.^[35] These patterns align with evolutionary explanations where selection pressures favor objective adaptive behaviors, such as reciprocity and property respect, which enhance group fitness independently of individual or cultural opinion; cultures deviating from these face empirical disadvantages in stability and reproduction.^[57] Subjectivist and postmodern critiques, which posit morality as mere preference or power construct, encounter empirical resistance from folk metaethics research showing widespread intuition toward moral objectivity. Surveys across demographics indicate people attribute mind-independence to core prohibitions like unnecessary harm, viewing them as true regardless of belief, unlike aesthetic tastes.^[4] This folk objectivism persists developmentally from childhood into adulthood, as evidenced by consistent judgments in longitudinal studies, undermining claims that such views are culturally imposed artifacts. Postmodern dismissals of objective truth as narrative fail causal scrutiny, as moral convergence in global institutions—like near-universal bans on genocide post-1948—reflects evidence-based refinement, not deconstructed relativism.^[58] Evolutionary debunking arguments against realism, which suggest moral beliefs arise from non-truth-tracking adaptations, are rebutted by the tracking hypothesis: natural selection equips agents with faculties attuned to objective goods (e.g., harm avoidance) because misalignment yields fitness costs, paralleling perceptual realism in other domains.^[36] Empirical heritability data from twin studies reinforce this, showing genetic components to moral traits like fairness sensitivity, independent of cultural conditioning, consistent with realist ontology over error-prone subjectivity.^[59] Collectively, these findings privilege objectivism by demonstrating moral convergence grounded in empirical regularities, not ideological fiat.

Varieties of Moral Objectivism

Theistic and Religious Variants

Theistic moral objectivism maintains that moral truths exist independently of human minds because they are rooted in the existence, nature, or commands of a divine being, providing an external, transcendent foundation for ethical norms.^[60] This approach contrasts with secular variants by attributing moral authority to God's eternal and unchanging will, which is conceived as the ultimate source of goodness and obligation, ensuring universality across cultures and time.^[61] Proponents argue that without such a divine ground, moral claims risk collapsing into subjective preferences, as human reason alone cannot generate binding absolutes.^[62] A central variant is divine command theory (DCT), which asserts that moral obligations arise directly from God's commands, such that an action is right if and only if it aligns with divine decree.^[60] This theory finds expression in Abrahamic traditions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—where sacred texts like the Torah, Bible, and Quran are interpreted as repositories of God's explicit directives, as in the Ten Commandments or Quranic injunctions against usury and murder.^[63] In these frameworks, God's omniscience and omnipotence render commands non-arbitrary, as they reflect perfect wisdom rather than caprice, thereby securing objective moral facts binding on all rational agents.^[64] Historical figures like William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347) advanced DCT by emphasizing God's sovereign will as the sole arbiter of right and wrong, influencing medieval Christian ethics.^[60] Another key variant is natural law theory, which posits that objective moral principles are discernible through human reason as reflections of God's eternal law embedded in creation.^[60] Articulated by Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) in works like the Summa Theologica, it holds that God's rational nature ordains universal goods—such as preserving life, pursuing knowledge, and living in society—which humans apprehend via natural inclinations and intellect, making morality accessible yet divinely sourced.^[60] Unlike strict DCT, natural law integrates divine commands with rational derivation, arguing that precepts like "do good and avoid evil" are self-evident synderesis principles derived from the divine intellect.^[60] This variant has shaped Catholic moral theology, influencing documents like the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, which affirms human laws must conform to natural law to be just.^[61] In Islamic ethics, theistic objectivism manifests through Sharia, where moral objectivity stems from God's commands in the Quran and Hadith, supplemented by rational jurisprudence (ijtihad) to apply timeless principles to contingent situations.^[63] Scholars like Al-Ghazali (1058–1111) blended divine voluntarism with rational insight, viewing moral good as conformity to Allah's will, which is inherently wise and just.^[64] Similarly, Jewish ethics via Halakha treats the 613 mitzvot as divine imperatives revealing objective moral order, with Maimonides (1138–1204) incorporating Aristotelian reason to argue that true virtue aligns with God's rational purpose.^[63] These religious variants collectively emphasize that divine transcendence resolves relativism by anchoring ethics in a necessary being whose existence causally undergirds moral realism, as evidenced in empirical studies linking theistic belief to heightened moral objectivism.^[65]

Secular and Rationalist Variants

Secular variants of moral objectivism assert that moral truths are discoverable through human reason, empirical investigation, or facts about human nature, without presupposing divine commands or supernatural entities. These approaches treat morality as akin to other objective domains, such as mathematics or physics, where validity stems from logical consistency, observable consequences, or inherent properties of reality. Proponents argue that subjective feelings or cultural norms cannot override these truths, as moral claims function as propositions capable of being true or false independently of approvers.^[1] A foundational rationalist strand traces to ancient philosophy, exemplified by Aristotle's virtue ethics, which grounds objectivity in the teleological structure of human life. Aristotle identified eudaimonia—rational flourishing—as the ultimate end, achievable through virtues like courage and justice, which represent rational means between extremes of excess and deficiency, aligned with human function as rational animals. This framework posits moral excellence as objectively prescribed by biology and reason, not arbitrary preference.^[66] In modern rationalism, Immanuel Kant's deontology offers a secular derivation of objective duties via the categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Kant derived this from the structure of practical reason alone, asserting it yields binding, universal norms—such as prohibitions on lying or coercion—without empirical contingencies or theological postulates, ensuring moral objectivity through a priori rational necessity.^[67] Ayn Rand's Objectivism represents a comprehensive secular system, integrating metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics under reason as the absolute. Rand contended that objective values arise from the axiom of existence—reality is independent of consciousness—and the standard of man's life as a rational being, making rational egoism (pursuit of one's own flourishing through productive achievement) the moral code. Actions like fraud or altruism-for-altruism's-sake violate this objectivity by contradicting the causal requirements of survival qua man.^[68]^[69] Contemporary empirical approaches, such as Sam Harris's in The Moral Landscape (2010), anchor objectivity in neuroscience and psychology, defining moral peaks as states maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures. Harris argued that science can delineate a "landscape" of outcomes, where interventions like education or policy empirically elevate flourishing while reducing suffering, refuting relativism by noting convergent facts across cultures on basics like health and harm avoidance.^[70] Ethical intuitionism, defended by philosophers like Michael Huemer, provides a rationalist epistemology for secular objectivism, positing that moral truths—such as the wrongness of gratuitous torture—are known through reliable intuitions, analogous to perceptual knowledge, and corroborated by reflective equilibrium. Huemer refuted subjectivist alternatives by showing moral judgments' logical structure and resistance to counterexamples, like widespread endorsement of Nazi practices failing to render genocide permissible.^[1]

Contemporary Implications

Applications in Metaethics and Normative Theory

Moral objectivism posits that moral facts exist independently of human attitudes or cultural variances, enabling metaethical analyses to treat moral discourse as genuinely truth-apt and capable of objective resolution rather than mere expression of sentiment or error.^[8] This framework counters non-cognitivist views, such as emotivism, by arguing that moral predicates refer to stance-independent properties, often non-natural in character, which ground the semantic and ontological status of ethical claims.^[71] In contemporary metaethics, objectivism applies to debates over moral epistemology, supporting the possibility of rational access to these facts through intuition or reflection, as evidenced by defenses against J.L. Mackie's "queerness" argument that moral properties, while sui generis, are no more ontologically suspect than other irreducibly normative domains like epistemic rationality.^[25] Empirical investigations further illustrate its application, revealing that individuals intuitively attribute greater objectivity to moral judgments than to aesthetic or prudential ones, suggesting a psychological predisposition that aligns with realist metaethical commitments over subjectivist alternatives.^[72] Within normative theory, moral objectivism supplies a foundational commitment to the existence of determinate right and wrong actions, allowing ethical systems to aspire to universality and critique rather than mere endorsement of contingent preferences.^[5] This manifests in the evaluation of theories like utilitarianism or Kantian deontology as potential discoveries of objective moral structure, where disputes resolve toward convergence on truth rather than stalemate in incommensurable frameworks.^[73] Objectivism thereby reinforces the normative authority of moral reasons, independent of agents' motivational states, which underwrites prescriptions for behavior in diverse contexts—from personal dilemmas to policy formulation—without collapsing into relativism or instrumentalism.^[71] For example, it facilitates arguments for moral progress, as historical shifts (e.g., abolition of slavery in the 19th century across multiple societies) are interpretable as approximations to unchanging moral facts rather than arbitrary cultural evolution.^[5] In this way, objectivism bridges metaethical ontology with normative prescription, enabling robust defenses of ethical deliberation against skeptical challenges that deny binding standards altogether.^[25]

Societal, Legal, and Political Ramifications

Moral objectivism informs legal theory through natural law traditions, which assert that valid positive laws must align with objective moral principles derived from human nature and reason, rather than arbitrary decree or majority will. Proponents argue this framework distinguishes just laws from mere commands, enabling critique of tyrannical regimes; for instance, natural law underpinned arguments at the Nuremberg Trials (1945-1946), where Nazi actions were condemned as violations of universal moral norms transcending national statutes.^[74]^[75] In contemporary jurisprudence, this view challenges legal positivism by insisting that laws conflicting with objective morality—such as those permitting slavery or genocide—lack true legitimacy, potentially justifying civil disobedience or international intervention.^[76] Politically, moral objectivism bolsters the foundation of universal human rights by positing inherent dignity and moral claims independent of cultural consensus or state grant, as reflected in documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which invokes objective standards of justice.^[77] This perspective underpins libertarian and classical liberal advocacy for limited government, where individual rights to life, liberty, and property stem from objective ethical requirements for rational self-interest, as articulated in Ayn Rand's Objectivism, which derives political principles from a morality of rational egoism.^[78]^[79] Conversely, relativist alternatives risk eroding principled opposition to authoritarianism, as seen in critiques of cultural excuses for honor killings or female genital mutilation, where objectivists maintain these as objectively wrongful regardless of societal prevalence.^[80] Societally, empirical evidence reveals pervasive "folk moral objectivism," with studies indicating that laypeople across cultures intuitively treat core harms—like intentional killing or theft—as objectively wrong, independent of opinion, which fosters social cohesion through shared normative expectations.^[4] This intuition correlates with political orientations, where higher perceived moral objectivity on issues like fairness predicts conservative leanings and resistance to relativistic policies, such as expansive tolerance of subjective "harms" in identity-based conflicts. In education and policy, objectivism supports curricula emphasizing universal virtues over cultural relativism, potentially mitigating moral fragmentation; for example, surveys show declining endorsement of absolute wrongs among youth correlates with rising societal tolerance for behaviors like casual infidelity, linked to subjectivist influences in academia.^[81] Such dynamics highlight objectivism's role in sustaining stable institutions against erosion from unmoored pluralism.

References

[1]
Moral Objectivism
The present essay is a defense of a view called moral objectivism and attack on its opposite, subjectivism or moral relativism.Missing: key | Show results with:key
[2]
Russ Shafer-Landau, Moral realism: a defence - PhilPapers
Moral Realism is a systematic defence of the idea that there are objective moral standards. Russ Shafer-Landau argues that there are moral principles that ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[3]
Moral Realism: A Defense - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
May 1, 2004 · In this book, Russ Shafer-Landau demonstrates that the task remains possible. Over 300 pages or so, he defends an unorthodox combination of ...<|separator|>
[4]
Empirical research on folk moral objectivism - PMC - NIH
In this Section, we will present and evaluate four arguments that attempt to draw philosophical conclusions from hypotheses about folk moral objectivism: the ...Missing: key | Show results with:key
[5]
Our Morality: A Defense of Moral Objectivism | Issue 83
Moral objectivism, as I use the term, is the view that a single set of principles determines the permissibility of any action, and the correctness of any ...
[6]
Moral Objectivism vs. Subjectivism | Definition & Examples - Study.com
Moral objectivism generally binds humanity with principles that all people agree on in order to live peaceably within a society. In some cases, the principles ...
[7]
What philosophers believe in moral objectivism?
The philosophers that believed in moral objectivism include; Aristotle, Plato, Judith Thomson, and Russ Shafer. Moral objectivism is based on specific ...Missing: key | Show results with:key
[8]
Moral Realism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Oct 3, 2005 · Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are ...Moral Disagreement · Metaphysics · Epistemology · Semantics
[9]
Moral Relativism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feb 19, 2004 · The relativist argument is that we should reject moral objectivism because there is little prospect of rationally resolving fundamental moral ...<|separator|>
[10]
Ancient Greek Philosophy
With Socrates comes a sustained inquiry into ethical matters—an orientation towards human living and the best life for human beings. With Plato comes one of the ...
[11]
Ancient Ethical Theory - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Aug 3, 2004 · Ancient moral theory tries to provide a reflective account of an essential human activity so one can grasp what is of fundamental importance in pursuing it.<|separator|>
[12]
Introduction (Chapter 1) - Plato's Moral Realism
Jul 28, 2023 · This chapter presents an overview of Plato's moral realism. The metaphysical framework of Plato's moral realism is explained.<|separator|>
[13]
Robert Heinaman (ed.), Aristotle and Moral Realism - PhilPapers
The question of moral realism—whether our ethical beliefs rest on some objective foundation—is one that mattered as much to Aristotle as it does to us today ...
[14]
Stoic Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The Stoics defined the goal in life as living in agreement with nature. Humans, unlike all other animals, are constituted by nature to develop reason as adults.
[15]
Stoicism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jan 20, 2023 · This entry introduces the main doctrines and arguments of the three parts of Stoic philosophy – physics, logic, and ethics – emphasizing their interlocking ...Preliminaries · Physical Theory · Logic · Ethics
[16]
Augustine of Hippo - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Sep 25, 2019 · Augustine of Hippo was perhaps the greatest Christian philosopher of Antiquity and certainly the one who exerted the deepest and most lasting influence.
[17]
Anselm of Canterbury - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
May 18, 2000 · He is best known for the celebrated “ontological argument” for the existence of God in the Proslogion, but his contributions to philosophical ...
[18]
The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics
Sep 23, 2002 · On Aquinas's view, killing of the innocent is always wrong, as is lying, adultery, sodomy, and blasphemy; and that they are always wrong is a ...Key Features of Natural Law... · Theoretical Options for Natural...Missing: objectivism | Show results with:objectivism
[19]
Question 94. The natural law - SUMMA THEOLOGIAE - New Advent
The natural law is a habit. Because, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 5), "there are three things in the soul: power, habit, and passion."Missing: objectivism | Show results with:objectivism
[20]
Thomas Aquinas: Moral Philosophy
4. Natural Law. Aquinas is often described as a natural law theorist. While natural law is a significant aspect of his moral philosophy, it is a subject of ...Metaethics · The Nature of Human Action · The Cardinal Virtues · Natural LawMissing: objectivism | Show results with:objectivism
[21]
Kant's moral philosophy
Feb 23, 2004 · Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that the supreme principle of morality is a principle of rationality that he dubbed the “Categorical ...Aims and Methods of Moral... · Good Will, Moral Worth and Duty
[22]
Enlightenment - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Aug 20, 2010 · The problem of giving a satisfying account of moral motivation is a difficult one for empiricist moral philosophers in the Enlightenment.The True: Science... · Rationalism and the... · The Beautiful: Aesthetics in the...Missing: objectivism | Show results with:objectivism
[23]
Immanuel Kant and the “Crisis of the Enlightenment”
Sep 20, 2023 · Kant addressed himself to philosophical debates that had evolved through decades of the Enlightenment—the nature of knowledge, the possibility ...
[24]
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand - AynRand.org
Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy, is a full system with a new conception of objectivity, where the mind grasps facts by correct mental processes.
[25]
Moral Realism | The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory
Moral realism is the view that there are moral facts, and our moral judgments are true or false based on these facts, which are what they are even if we see ...
[26]
David Friedman on Moral Realism - by Lance S. Bush
Feb 23, 2024 · Secular moral realism emerged in force only in the last century. It's that recent. Strip away those theistic trappings of a Manichean ...
[27]
An Ontological Proof of Moral Realism - Michael Huemer | Substack
Nov 18, 2023 · Moral realism: The thesis that there are some objective moral reasons. That is, there are some reasons for action that are categorical (not based on the agent' ...
[28]
https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
[29]
Moral Realism - Russ Shafer-Landau - Oxford University Press
Free delivery 25-day returnsRuss Shafer-Landau argues that there are moral principles that are true independently of what anyone, anywhere, happens to think of them.
[30]
Moral Realism: A Defence: Shafer-Landau, Russ - Amazon.com
Russ Shafer-Landau argues that there are moral principles that are true independently of what anyone, anywhere, happens to think of them.Missing: epistemology | Show results with:epistemology
[31]
Ethical Intuitionism: Huemer, M.: 9780230573741 - Amazon.com
A defence of ethical intuitionism where (i) there are objective moral truths; (ii) we know these through an immediate, intellectual awareness, or 'intuition'.
[32]
5 Moral Knowledge
We need reasons for believing our ethical intuitions, or the faculty of intuition in general, to be reliable. Otherwise, intuitions cannot justify our moral ...
[33]
Taking Morality Seriously - David Enoch - Oxford University Press
Free delivery 25-day returnsA powerful argument for universal and objective moral truths · Makes significant advances in the debate over morality and normative ethics · Tightly argued; ...
[34]
The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism | Reviews
Jun 23, 2008 · Terence Cuneo, The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism, Oxford University Press, 2007, 263pp., $75.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780199218837.
[35]
Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries ...
Jan 21, 2020 · Cross-cultural studies suggested a complex pattern of universals and variations in the way people approach this question, but data were ...
[36]
Morality and Evolutionary Biology
Dec 19, 2008 · Even where moral beliefs are heavily shaped by culture, there might be such evolutionary influences in the background: evolved psychological ...Overview: Basic Issues... · Evolutionary Biology and... · Evolutionary Metaethics
[37]
The genetics of morality and prosociality - ScienceDirect.com
Such twin studies reveal a substantial heritability for prosocial behaviors, with genetic factors accounting for 30–50% of individual variance [56,57,58••], in ...
[38]
Testing heritability of moral foundations: Common pathway models ...
May 26, 2022 · Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) predicts that moral behaviour reflects at least five foundational traits, each hypothesised to be heritable.
[39]
The Neurobiology of Moral Behavior: Review and Neuropsychiatric ...
Morality may be innate to the human brain. This review examines the neurobiological evidence from research involving functional magnetic resonance imaging ...
[40]
Are children moral objectivists? Children's judgments about moral ...
Two experiments are reported showing that children are more likely to treat properties like fun and icky as response-dependent than moral properties like good ...
[41]
Moral Foundations Theory | moralfoundations.org
Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) was developed by a team of social and cultural psychologists, primarily Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham.Questionnaires · Publications · Other Materials · Videos and Press
[42]
Universality and Cultural Diversity in Moral Reasoning and Judgment
Dec 12, 2021 · Everybody has areas of moral concern developed by evolution, in which some intuitions are more predominant than others.
[43]
[PDF] Patterns of Culture - Stephen Hicks
Patterns of Culture. (Excerpts). By Ruth Benedict. (1934). “Morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits ...
[44]
[PDF] The Challenge of Cultural Relativism - rintintin.colorado.edu
Cultural Relativism challenges our belief in the objectivity and legitimacy of moral judgments. The following claims have all been emphasized by cultural ...
[45]
An Investigation Into the Practice of Female Infanticide in the Arctic
Ethnographic reports suggest that infanticide was a direct result of these privations, since infants born in times of stress were im- mediately killed to ensure ...
[46]
[PDF] Moral Objectivism - Journals@KU
Unlike non-descriptivists and objectivists, subjectivists claim that moral rightness and wrongness is dependent on the attitudes or inclinations of some set of ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
[47]
5.6: Other Moral Theories- Subjectivism, Relativism, Emotivism ...
Mar 8, 2024 · 30 Other Moral Theories: Subjectivism, Relativism, Emotivism, Intuitionism, etc. Jan Franciszek Jacko · Brandt, R. B. (1967). Ethical relativism.
[48]
A Defence of Emotivism | 4. Objectivism in Moral Language
Critique of objectivist objection to C.L. Stevenson's meta-ethical emotivism that normal users of moral language are objectivists, not subjectivists.
[49]
Moral Error Theory - 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Jul 23, 2025 · Mackie provides two arguments, which he calls 'The Argument from Disagreement' and 'The Argument from Queerness'. Though both arguments are ...<|separator|>
[50]
Moral Error Theory - Oxford Academic
Jul 17, 2025 · This chapter explicates and explores the five ways in which J. L. Mackie argued in favor of moral error theory and against moral realism.3 Moral Error Theory · The Nature Of Moral Error... · Mackie's Relativity Argument
[51]
The Postmodern Assault on Reason - The Atlas Society
Postmodernism, as a philosophy and as an intellectual movement, is characterized by strong skepticism and subjectivism, and consequently by ethical relativism.
[52]
[PDF] Explanation and critique of the principles of postmodern moral ...
This paper provides an explanation and critique of the principles of moral education from the post-modern point of view. Key words: Moral education, moral ...
[53]
[PDF] 41 Postmodern Theory - Chapter 2 Foucault and the Critique of ...
In his genealogical works of the 1970s, Foucault stigmatizes modern rationality, institutions, and forms of subjectivity as sources or constructs of domination.
[54]
[PDF] 371 discourse or moral action? a critique of postmodernism
Dissenting from this naive realism results, as we have seen, in postmodemists embracing ”textualism,” a concern with texts as the only source of meaning, Every ...
[55]
Seven moral rules found all around the world | University of Oxford
Feb 11, 2019 · The present study, published in Current Anthropology, is the largest and most comprehensive cross-cultural survey of morals ever conducted.
[56]
Moral universals: A machine-reading analysis of 256 societies
Mar 30, 2024 · We use MAC-D to estimate the cross-cultural prevalence of MAC's seven moral values in a total of 256 societies; and we compare the results of the hand- and ...
[57]
[PDF] Seven Moral Rules Found All Around the World Oliver Scott Curry
3 These seven moral values will be universal. Previous empirical work on morality in diverse cultures – comparative anthropology and questionnaire-based ...
[58]
The Challenge of Cultural Relativism
The Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believe infanticide is immoral. Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor ...
[59]
Full article: Moral progress, knowledge and error: Do people believe ...
Our paper hence contributes to recent empirical challenges to the thesis that people believe in moral objectivity. KEYWORDS:
[60]
Can We Have Ethics without Religion? On Divine Command Theory ...
The Divine Command Theory of Morality (DCT) is a relatively simple theory of moral obligation that equates our moral duties to the commandments of God: X is ...2 Can We Have Ethics Without... · The Divine Command Theory Of... · The Natural Law Theory Of...Missing: objectivism | Show results with:objectivism<|separator|>
[61]
Models of Moral Realism in Christian Ethics | Harvard Theological ...
Sep 29, 2015 · This paper examines three accounts of moral realism proposed by prominent contemporary Christian ethicists in order to discuss their distinct ...
[62]
A Moral Argument for God, Part 1: Moral Realism - Apologetics
Jan 15, 2024 · Moral arguments for God's existence are based on the existence of objective moral facts and values, as well as other moral realities presumed to exist.
[63]
Divine Command Theory - (Intro to Humanities) - Fiveable
Divine Command Theory is an ethical framework that posits that moral values and duties are grounded in the commands of a divine being.
[64]
(PDF) A CRITIQUE OF THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY OF ...
Aug 5, 2021 · Divine command theory is a theory of ethics that grounds the nature of ethical demands in the fact that they represent the command of God.<|control11|><|separator|>
[65]
Moral objectivism and a punishing God - ScienceDirect.com
In this paper, we present original research exploring the connections between metaethics and particular conceptions of God among religious participants.
[66]
Aristotle's Virtue Ethics: Finding the Mean for Moral Excellence
Sep 15, 2023 · Aristotle's ethics centered on achieving happiness through virtue, defining it as a mean between excess and deficiency.What Is Virtue Ethics? 🔗 · Moral Virtues 🔗 · Intellectual Virtues 🔗<|control11|><|separator|>
[67]
[PDF] Kant's Science of the Moral World and Moral Objectivity
Critics of Kant's moral philosophy often object that it cannot account for moral requirements that are both genuinely objective and contentful.Missing: objectivism | Show results with:objectivism
[68]
What Is Objectivism? - by Craig Biddle - The Objective Standard
Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility ...
[69]
The Objectivist Ethics - ARI Campus - The Ayn Rand Institute
Objectivist ethics is a code of values to guide choices, where an organism's life is the ultimate value, and what furthers it is the good.<|separator|>
[70]
The Moral Landscape - Making Sense | Sam Harris
In this explosive new book, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values, arguing that most people are simply mistaken.Missing: objectivism | Show results with:objectivism
[71]
[PDF] Four Faces of Moral Realism - USC Dornsife
The alleged epistemological queerness of ontological moral reality concerns the manner of our epistemic access to it. Given that moral properties like value ...
[72]
[PDF] The psychology of meta-ethics: Exploring objectivism
How do lay individuals think about the objectivity of their ethical beliefs? Do they regard them as factual and objective, or as more subjective and ...
[73]
[PDF] Do 'Objectivist' Features of Moral Discourse and Thinking Support ...
Moral objectivism tells us that in (most) paradigm moral disagreements, one party is right and the other wrong, and not just relative to some arbitrary ...
[74]
What Natural Law Can and Can't Do – Thomas D. Howes
Jun 14, 2023 · In perhaps its most basic sense, to invoke natural law is to affirm moral objectivity and to acknowledge a standard that transcends positive or ...Missing: objectivism | Show results with:objectivism
[75]
The Necessity of Moral Laws | Houston Christian University
Aug 20, 2017 · The first principle, known as natural law theory, ensures just laws by maintaining harmony between law and morality. Under natural law theory, ...Missing: objectivism ramifications
[76]
[PDF] Legal Enforcement of Morality - Scholarly Commons
Whether acting on these feelings is consistent with liberal principles is debatable. Those who are skeptical about the existence of objective morality or ...Missing: peer | Show results with:peer
[77]
[PDF] Are Political Principles Dependent on Objective Moral Philosophy?
Jun 30, 2025 · In this framework, objective morality offers foundational guidance on human dignity and rights, but political principles are refined and made.
[78]
Morality and Politics, The Atlas Society | Ayn Rand, Objectivism ...
But the fundamental factor is moral: the beliefs people have about right and wrong, good and bad; their aspirations for their lives; the virtues they practice ...
[79]
Rights and Self-Interest, The Atlas Society | Ayn Rand, Objectivism ...
On the Objectivist view, individual rights are principles the provide the foundation of a just legal and political order. Individual rights are in one's self- ...Missing: implications | Show results with:implications
[80]
[PDF] Moral Relativism and Human Rights
Sep 1, 2007 · The reason is that there are a number of other moral/political considerations, such as the value of state sovereignty and of self ...Missing: objectivism implications
[81]
[PDF] University of Groningen Folk moral objectivism and its measurement
Jun 24, 2019 · Experimental philosophers and psychologists investigate whether people perceive moral judgments to be ob- jectively true or false.