what’s the problem with objective morality?


If you’re going to continue insisting, “No, there IS no objective morality”, then you’re really only faced with one alternative. Whatever the majority believes at any given time, that is “morally right”. Period. If the majority changes it’s “analysis” to conclude the opposite is “right”, then boom, the opposite is suddenly “moral”. No one was “morally wrong”, the day before, when everyone was doing the inverse of today, they were every bit as much “morally right”!

Do you honestly not see the problem there….?



This Christian blogger has a bit of brick wall in their way when it comes to thinking about morality. Unfortunately, because humans have conceptualised the notion of feeling something is the ‘right’ or the ‘wrong’ thing to do, and have given these feelings a label called ‘morality’, this Christian thinks the notion of ‘morality’ actually physically exists.

I’m not clear if she/he thinks that there is a written book of rights and wrongs that some invisible creature can refer to, or if all the rights and wrongs are chiseled in a sacred tablet or a golden plate, but she/he definitely appears to be under the impression that humans refer to some magic and as yet unseen reference point for our so-called ‘moral’ instincts.

Let’s consider a few example areas:

1. A few hundred years ago it was morally good to have slaves. Slave owners were giving stupid people a place to live and food to drink. Slave owners were probably even giving people access to religious instruction and maybe even education. Slave owners were morally good people just following the rules in the Bible. Today, most people agree that slave owning is morally bad.

2. In Saudi Arabia, it’s morally wrong for women to drive cars because they should be secluded and protected. It is also morally wrong for them to leave their home without a male guardian. In the rest of the world, Saudi Arabia’s attitude towards women is considered morally wrong.

3. Some people think it is morally wrong to deny terminally ill people in serious pain the right to end their lives. Other people think it is morally wrong to give terminally ill people in serious pain the assistance they require to end their lives.

I am going to keep on insisting there is no objective morality. That’s why humans all over the world and throughout history have had different views about what is the best course of action in any given situation. And I don’t see a problem with this. Why do so many Christians?