The Death of Objective Morality
Letting Go of Moral Realism
Most people believe, or act as if they believe, in objective morality. They speak in absolutes: “Murder is wrong,” “You ought to help the poor,” “Racism is evil.” These are not presented as opinions or preferences—but as facts. As if they are true in the same way gravity is true.
But morality is made of value judgments. And as we've shown, all value is subjective.
This means morality cannot be objective—because it has no raw material to work with. No valuer, no value. No value, no moral claim.
Morality is not a special kind of truth. It’s a structured hierarchy of preferences. It’s a vocabulary for describing what one values, detests, prioritizes, or avoids. It includes rules, duties, goals, and taboos—but at root, it's just a system for expressing what matters to someone.
So when someone says, “Stealing is wrong,” what they’re really saying—whether they know it or not—is: “I value a world where people don’t steal. I’m willing to punish or shame those who do. I prefer non-stealing outcomes.”
That’s a perfectly coherent position. What’s incoherent is pretending that the wrongness of stealing exists independently of anyone's preferences, experiences, or goals.
This isn’t abstract. It’s not a philosopher’s game. It’s a fact about how minds work. You won't find a moral claim that doesn’t presuppose a valuer.
“Murder is wrong.” Why? Because it causes suffering? Because it violates autonomy? Those are valued outcomes. If no one valued autonomy or suffering reduction, the rule wouldn’t exist.
“Slavery is evil.” Why? Because it dehumanizes? Because it involves coercion? Again, these are evaluations—meaning-dependent judgments that require a mind to generate them.
Take away all valuing agents, and every moral claim evaporates.
Attempts to ground morality in objective foundations have all failed, or quietly retreated into dogma:
God? Only works if you accept the divine authority in question.
Reason? Can’t generate values from logic alone. It only helps organize what you already value.
Evolution? Explains where our instincts come from, not whether they’re right.
Moral intuition? Circular. “It feels wrong” only works if your feelings are the arbiter—which is just subjective valuation again.
Every supposed foundation either:
Smuggles in subjective preferences as universal laws, or
Appeals to the preferences of a powerful agent (a deity, a culture, a future AI overlord).
None of these are objective. They are just subjective values wearing masks.
Why do people still believe in moral objectivity? Because it feels safe. It lets you condemn others without self-doubt. It lets you demand action without negotiating values. It provides clarity in conflict.
But that clarity is fake.
Once you see that morality is just structured value, the illusion dissolves. You stop asking “What is the right thing to do?” in a vacuum. You start asking, “What do I value, and what follows from that?” Or: “What do we value, and how do we coordinate?”
Does this mean morality is meaningless? Not at all.
Morality still matters—just not as a metaphysical commandment. It matters because we care. We build moral systems to express and refine our deepest values. We use them to shape our actions, signal our identities, and structure our communities. The difference is, we do it knowing it’s our creation—not pretending it’s handed down from the sky.
The death of objective morality is the birth of moral agency.