The Objective Nature of Morality

Like some of the philosophers we read about in our books I believe that morality and moral actions must be based on some objective truths. The moral relativist's claim about the nature of moral values Ð'- that they cannot be judged against any absolute truth Ð'- is usually a false one. I believe that an action's rightness or wrongness exists independent of human reason and human convention. One particularly important property of objective truths of this sort is that their existence is in no way dependent on any human knowledge of them; they are simply a fundamental part of the universe like mathematics. No one would argue that mathematical relationships did not exist before we discovered them, much less that they exist as they do because we invented them.

Moral relativism is the belief that no independent moral truth exists but that morality is defined, rather, by individual and cultural beliefs and conventions. Moral values of this type, whose validity would be resultant of their creation by and subsequent standardization in a particular society, would be analogous in origin and nature to the customs of etiquette arrived at by the same means. Societies assembled their guidelines of etiquette over time and, in doing so, assigned to them any weight they now have. If moral relativism is accepted, moral codes must be created and made valid among their followers in the same way. The following argument exposes the fatal deficiency of this theory and, in doing so, proves that objective moral truth must exist if morality is to have any value.

The purpose of morality is to direct actions toward happiness. If morality were relative, it could only be determined by human reason and human convention. If morality were determined by human reason and human convention, it would either be determined arbitrarily or as an attempt by individuals and societies to direct their actions toward happiness. If morality were determined arbitrarily, it would bear no weight in directing our actions and, consequently, be worthless. Humanity, having invented moral codes, has not achieved happiness. If morality were an attempt by individuals and societies to direct their actions toward happiness, it would be an inherently and eternally unsuccessful attempt, and such morality would be worthless in its failure to fulfill its purpose. Morality is not worthless. Morality is neither determined arbitrarily nor determined as an attempt to direct our actions

...