Moral Realism - Defended

Moral Realism - Defended

The concept of Moral Realism is the philosophical position that morality is objective, much like science or mathematics. It holds that there are moral facts about the world that are true regardless of what anyone thinks, feels, or believes.

This view contrasts with Anti-Realism (which claims morality is subjective, culturally constructed, or fictitious) and Non-Cognitivism (which claims moral statements are just expressions of emotion, like booing or cheering).

The Core Concept

To be a moral realist, one must generally accept three pillars:

1. Cognitivism: Moral statements (e.g., "Murder is wrong") express beliefs that can be true or false. They are not just emotional outbursts.
2. Truth-Aptness: These moral beliefs describe facts. "Murder is wrong" is capable of being true in the same grammatical way that "The cat is on the mat" is true.
3. Objectivity (Independence): The truth of these facts does not depend on the observer's opinion. If the entire world believed that torturing innocents was "good," the moral realist would argue that the entire world is simply mistaken, just as if everyone believed the earth was flat.

Here is the robust defense of Moral Realism, structured by its strongest arguments.

---

1. The "Companions in Guilt" Argument

This is arguably the strongest logical defense of moral realism. It argues that if you attack moral facts for being invisible or non-physical, you inadvertently destroy other things we believe are real, like mathematics and logic. This is essentially a philosophical strategy of mutually assured destruction. It defends Moral Realism by asserting that the arguments used to kill off morality would also accidentally kill off mathematics and logic—two disciplines that almost everyone (including skeptics) believes are objective and true.

Critics say moral facts (like "murder is wrong") are weird because you can't touch them or put them in a test tube. Since You cannot touch "wrongness." It isn’t made of atoms. it cannot exist. Since we can’t see/touch them, how do we know them? We must rely on "intuition," which skeptics claim is unscientific.

The Defense: You also cannot touch or see the number 7, or the logical rule of Modus Ponens, or the concept of validity. Yet, we believe 2+2=4 is an objective fact, not just an opinion. Thus, If mathematical truths can exist without being physical objects, why can't moral truths? To reject moral realism because it isn't "physical" forces you to reject mathematics and logic. If you want to keep math, you have to allow room for non-physical objective truths (companions)

2. The Argument from Epistemic Norms

Epistemic norms are the rules and standards that govern how we form, maintain, and revise our beliefs. While moral norms tell you how to act (e.g., "don't steal"), and prudential norms tell you what is in your best interest (e.g., "eat healthy food"), epistemic norms tell you how to be a "good thinker." They are strictly concerned with truth, knowledge, and justification.

• You ought to believe p only if p is true.
• You ought to proportion your belief to the strength of your evidence
• You ought not believe both p and not-p at the same time.
• You should only tate as fact that which you know.

This version is arguably stronger because it focuses on Normativity (rules about what you ought to do). It is largely associated with philosopher Terence Cuneo and his book The Normative Web.

The Attack on Morality

Skeptics argue that "Ought" statements are not real facts. The universe just is; it contains atoms and energy. It does not contain instructions on what you should do. Therefore, moral "oughts" (e.g., "You ought not kill") are just human inventions or emotions.

The "Guilt" of Logic

The fact is Logic and Science are entirely built on "ought" statements. These are called Epistemic Norms (norms of belief).

• If you believe P and you believe P > Q, logic dictates that you ought to believe Q.
• If you see overwhelming evidence for a theory, you ought to believe that theory is likely true.
• You ought not believe that A and non-A are both true at the same time.

If the skeptic says, "There are no objective 'oughts' in the universe," they fall into a trap:

• If there are no "oughts," then there is no rule saying I ought to accept their argument, even if it is valid.

• If they say, "But my argument is the best explanation, so you should accept it," they are appealing to a binding, objective norm (a logical "ought").

• Therefore, to argue against moral norms, they must utilize epistemic norms. They are proving that objective norms exist in the very act of trying to disprove them

Thus, one cannot do Science without Morality (or at least, normative facts).

The "Companions in Guilt" argument forces the skeptic to choose between two uncomfortable positions:

Position	Consequence
Accept the Companions	If you admit that Math and Logic are objective, non-physical realities, you lose your main reason for rejecting Morality. You have opened the door to "abstract objective truths."
Reject the Companions	If you bite the bullet and say "Okay, Math and Logic are not objectively true either," you destroy your ability to reason or make scientific arguments. You end up in total Nihilism.

3. The Argument from Moral Progress

This one of the most intuitive and historically grounded defenses of Moral Realism. It posits that the undeniable improvement in human morality over time (e.g., the abolition of slavery, the recognition of women's rights) cannot be logically explained unless there is an objective moral standard we are discovering.  

Here is an expanded analysis of how this argument works, why it is powerful, and how it defends itself against skeptics.

The "Yardstick" Analogy.

The argument rests on a simple logical rule: To say something has "improved," you must measure it against a fixed standard.

Imagine you are trying to determine if a child has grown taller. You cannot just compare the child to themselves from yesterday (too small a change) or to a cloud (which keeps moving). You need a ruler (a fixed standard). If there is no ruler, you can only say the child has changed, not that they have grown.

If Moral Realism is false, there is no "moral ruler. A Relativist can say, "*We used to like slavery; now we dislike it.*" They can describe the change. But they **cannot** say, "*We are better now.*" To say we are better implies we are closer to the "correct" answer than our ancestors were.  So the question to relativists is "is society better without slaves"? 

Almost everyone believes that abolishing chattel slavery was a genuine improvement, not just a random change in fashion (like switching from bell-bottoms to skinny jeans). The moment you admit it was better, you implicitly admit there is an objective standard of "Good" that slavery failed to meet.

Historical Evidence: The Phenomenon of "Convergence"

Realists argue that moral history does not look like random drift; it looks like scientific convergence.

In science, we started with many different theories (alchemy, humors, flat earth). Over centuries, scientists from different cultures converged on a single truth (chemistry, germ theory, round earth) because they were all studying the same objective reality

Realists argue morality shows a similar pattern.  Ancient cultures were vastly different (some sacrificed children, some had slaves, some were warrior castes). Over millennia, the world has slowly converged on specific values: Human Rights, equality, and the reduction of unnecessary suffering.

Realists argue that this convergence is best explained by the fact that we are slowly discovering the same moral facts, just as we discovered the same physics facts.

One of the most powerful formulations of this argument comes from philosopher Peter Singer.  Singer observes that moral progress almost always follows a specific direction: the expansion of the circle of moral concern.

• Primitive: "Only me and my kin matter."
• Tribe: "Only my tribe matters; strangers can be killed."
• Nation: "Only my countrymen matter."
• Humanity: "All humans matter (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)."
• Future: "Animals and future generations matter."

If morality were just random cultural "drift," we might expect the circle to shrink sometimes and expand others randomly. The fact that it consistently widens suggests a directional discovery process: we are realizing that the boundaries we drew were arbitrary errors.

4. Defense Against Skeptics

Skeptics (Anti-Realists/Evolutionary Debunkers) try to debunk this argument by saying we didn't abolish slavery because it was "objectively wrong." We abolished it because free markets were more efficient, or because cooperation helped us survive better. "Progress" is just "better adaptation," not moral truth.

However, this ignores the reasons people actually gave. When the British ended the slave trade, they did so at massive economic cost to themselves. It wasn't efficient; it was expensive. The people fighting for it didn't say, "This is inefficient." They said, "This is evil."

If we explain away progress as just "economic adaptation," we have to believe that every great moral reformer (Gandhi, King, Wilberforce) was deluded about their own motivations. Realism takes their insights seriously.

Skeptic's also argue that Realists are just biased - *You think the present is "better" because you live in it. If the Nazis had won, they would call their world "progress.*

But, we can objectively demonstrate incoherence in past moralities. The American Founders wrote "*All men are created equal*" but owned slaves. This is a logical contradiction.

Progress happened because we fixed the contradiction (we realized "All men" must include Black men, and women).

The Nazis were objectively wrong because their ideology relied on false scientific claims (e.g., that Jews were biologically inferior). Real moral progress is often the result of better reasoning and removing logical contradictions, which is an objective process.

The Argument from Moral Progress is the Realist's strongest emotional and historical weapon. It forces the skeptic into an uncomfortable corner:

To deny Moral Realism, you must be willing to look at the Holocaust, Slavery, and Apartheid and say, "*We didn't solve these because they were truly wrong; we just changed our minds, and our current view is no more 'true' than the views of the slaveholders.*"

If morality were just subjective taste (like preferring chocolate to vanilla), we couldn't say abolishing slavery was "better"—only "different." We would have to admit that a slave-owning society is just as valid as a free one, merely "different flavors."

Our strong intuition that we have improved as a species implies there is a standard (a "moral yardstick") we are measuring ourselves against. Realism is the only view that allows for the concept of genuine progress  Most people find that conclusion impossible to live with, which drives them back toward Realism.

5. The "Euthyphro" Defense (Independence)

The "Euthyphro" Defense is a crucial strategic move by Moral Realists. It borrows its name from one of Plato’s most famous dialogues, the Euthyphro, to argue that Moral Realism is the only ethical framework that prevents morality from becoming a tool of tyranny.

This defense essentially argues that if you reject objective, independent moral facts, you accidentally embrace a world where "Might Makes Right."

1. The Original Dilemma (Plato)

To understand the defense, you first need the context of the dilemma Plato presented in the Euthyphro. Socrates asks Euthyphro a deceptively simple question about the nature of "piety" (or "the good"):

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

This creates a fork in the road for how we define Goodness:

Horn 1 (Independence/Realism): Goodness is independent. God (or society/law) loves it because it is already good.

Horn 2 (Voluntarism/Subjectivism): Goodness is dependent. It becomes good simply because God (or society/law) decides it is.

The Realist argues that if you choose the second option (that morality is created by a mind, whether God's or the Majority's), you destroy the meaning of morality itself.

The Arbitrariness Problem

If morality is merely "what the powerful say it is" (Horn 2), then the rules are arbitrary. If the majority commanded us to torture innocent children for fun, would that become morally good?

If you say "Yes," you have admitted that morality has no actual content; it’s just blind obedience. "Good" loses its meaning and just means "what I was told to do."

Realists say, "No, even if God commanded that, it would still be wrong." This proves there is a standard of Right and Wrong above the commander. This standard is the "Moral Fact" (Realism).

If Moral Realism is false, then morality is likely a construct of society.

Imagine a totalitarian government passes a law that legalizes genocide against a minority group. The majority of society supports it.

The Non-Realist Dilemma: If morality is defined by "society's agreement" or "the law," then by definition, the genocide is now morally right in that country. A non-realist has no platform to stand on and say, "This law is wrong." They can only say, "I personally don't like it."

The Realist Defense: Realism allows you to say: "The Law says X, and Society agrees with X, but X is objectively WRONG." This separates Power from Rightness. It gives the dissenter (the Martin Luther King Jr., the Sophie Scholl) the metaphysical ground to stand against the entire world and declare the world mistaken.

Who defines "Good"?	Consequence
The Subject / The State	"Might Makes Right." If the Nazis win and brainwash everyone, they become "morally right."
Reality Itself	"Right Makes Might." Even if the Nazis win, they are objectively wrong. Truth exists independently of power.

Finally, Moral Realism offers the most robust defense against authoritarianism.

If morality is created by minds (Subjectivism) or by society (Relativism), then the majority is always right. If 51% of a society votes to exterminate a minority, and morality is defined by that society, then the extermination is "morally right" by definition.

Moral Realism provides the only coherent ground to stand up and say, "The King is wrong," "The Law is wrong". It's the only philosophical shield that protects minorities and dissenters from the tyranny of the majority opinion.

Summary of the Defense

Argument	The Defense in a Nutshell
Companions in Guilt	If you deny moral facts, you must deny Math and Logic too.
Epistemic Norms	Science relies on "oughts" (rules of reasoning). If "oughts" aren't real, Science collapses.
Moral Progress	We have improved (e.g., ending slavery). Progress requires an objective standard to measure against.
Euthyphro	if you reject objective, independent moral facts, you accidentally embrace a world where "Might Makes Right."