Is Morality Real?
The title of this article should cause at least some of you to leap out of your chair, point accusingly at your computer, and shout, “How dare you! Of course morality is real. What kind of a silly person are you to suggest such a thing?” Quite right! Most people feel exactly as you do, and find a question like whether morality is real to be utterly absurd. We make moral choices every day. We have moral disagreements and ponder moral questions. How could all of that simply be made up?
Allow me to attempt to draw back the curtain and reveal morality’s true colors. First, we must be clear about what we mean by the statement that morality is real. We turn briefly to the well-known philosopher (which does not mean famous by any stretch), Geoffrey Sayre-McCord. He offers the notion that when we say morality is real, we mean that moral claims, when literally construed, are literally true. On this account, when I say “Murder is wrong,” and that is intended to be taken literally (rather than hypothetically or as citing a social norm) it is literally true, independently of what anyone thinks or feels about it.
We should note that not all “real” things are this way. Using Sayre-McCord’s account, laws are real in that we take them to be literally true and applicable to all of us. However, we rightly acknowledge that laws depend on the norms of a society. They are not real in the way we seem to think morality is. Whether murder is illegal depends on a society’s laws, but whether murder is wrong seems not to depend on anything, other than its factual truth. But what could this mean?
This means that if morality is real in the way we seem to think it is, then the truth of moral claims is mind-independent. Moral facts, which validate moral claims, exist independently of any evidence for them, thoughts about them, or feelings toward them. Here, then, is the rub. If moral facts are mind-independent, what the hell are they? Do they float about the room, waiting to be revealed by someone’s immoral acts? Are they somehow built into the natural facts of a situation, and if so, in what way? Those who claim morality is real must answer these questions.
These types of questions are likely far more interesting to the philosopher. Most normal people would change little about our daily moral decisions if it were suddenly revealed that morality either is or isn’t real. Either way, morality seems to matter, and it seems to be here to stay. What is significant, however, is what actually might change if morality was shown not to be real. Moral disputes might take on a different flavor, and they might cease to have the voracity that we often see in genuine moral disagreement. If morality is not real, what are we arguing about?
The key to this discussion, with regard to everyday ethics, is to be aware of what we mean when we talk about morality being real, and what implications this has. If we cite moral facts that we believe in as support for a particular view, and if we believe this is because moral facts are real, we must also be prepared to defend an account of their realness. This is not easy, and realizing the challenge we face will likely help us to be more tolerant of those with whom we disagree. Even if we maintain that our views are supported by the reality of moral facts, the puzzling nature of these facts makes it easier to understand why we do not all hold identical views.
About the Author
Eli Weber is a graduate student in Environmental Ethics and a Graduate Teaching Assistant at Colorado State University. He holds bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman University and currently lives in Fort Collins, Colorado with his wife Laura. He is a regular contributor to Mindful Source.
Read More by This Mindful Author
As an "off the beaten path career counselor" Valerie Young, of the company ChangingCourse, has many ideas on developing yourself ...
Thanks for the feedback. I share your opinion that these sorts of questions are part of everyone's daily lives, ...
This is a really useful subject for a post. I often wonder why 'philosopical' debates like this are left to ...
Thanks for the tips, Ed. We're glad you enjoy the site! 
Agreed. 
Great blog! There’s plenty of useful information and motivation. I’ll definitely be back. Check out my blog at Http://www.realfoodforlife.blogspot.com . ...
** “Indeed there are altogether no moral facts, only a moral interpretation of facts." Nietzsche **
Kant was doubly wrong -- ...
This is a good article. I don't think there is an easy answer.
I America needs to curb it's own driving ...
Comment by bipolar2 on 9 April 2008:
** “Indeed there are altogether no moral facts, only a moral interpretation of facts.” Nietzsche **
Kant was doubly wrong — there’s no moral law within me and there’s no moralized cosmic order (god, freedom, immortality) above me.
Begin with Twilight of the idols (”Morality as counter-nature”) — moralities are ranked by how well or how poorly they contribute to the “health” of the cultures which espouse them. After all, one’s yardstick for comparison can’t be another moral viewpoint. That would beg the question.
Nietzsche ranks the harsh Laws of Manu (establishing a caste system) as vastly more to be valued than the nihilism espoused by Paul, say in 1Corinthians1. (N, however, is not espousing incorporation of master morality into modern life. See Ns The Antichrist.)
This is not relativism. (Since moralities can be ranked) This is not amorality. (Since there are many moralities — but of unequal value.) It is moral perspectivism. And an example of the first rank of Ns revaluation of all values.
bipolar2
© 2008
Comment by Eli Weber on 18 April 2008:
Hmm…I don’t know much about Nietzsche, so I’ll take your word for it that this is what he says. However, I think the point holds that when most people engage in moral disagreement, they THINK they are talking about something real, and TALK as though moral facts are real and can be true or false. I’m not sure how Nietzsche accounts for this, can’t really tell from your comment. Also, I’d have to ask by what criteria moralities are ranked. If its a matter of perspective, how is that not relativism? If its a matter of fact, that’s realism. At a minimum, it sounds like Nietzche has some kind of relativism going on, though not necessarily a naive relativism. Nietzsche is the traditional opponent of Kant, but there are lots of contemporary philosophers who are much more compelling as Kant. Not saying I’m a realist, or that I’m not one, just that this is an intersting question that is not resolved yet. Thanks for the comments.