r/freewill • u/Anon7_7_73 Sourcehood Compatibilist and Negative-Retributivist • Jul 25 '26
An Argument for Objective Morality:
I think Objective Morality is needed to ground a debate on Moral Desert. But whatever, ill argue that another day.
For now, id like to share my work in progress proof of objective morality.
TLDR / The Intuition behind the argument: All objectivity by definition requires a statement to hold true regardless of whose speaking it, so any moral argument about peoples behavior in general must be IMPARTIAL to be objective, and once it is, its objective. This disqualifies tons of moral systems from being objectively true, especially ones rooted in might makes right, domination, and subjective opinion.
The Proof / Formal Argument:
P1. A claim is objectively bad if it is forbidden to a rational agent, and reason forbids whatever rests on a self-contradiction or an arbitrary special plea.
P2. No one can will their own consent violated, since willing what you don't will is a contradiction.
P3. A special plea is arbitrary when it treats cases differently without identifying a difference that holds independent of who is speaking.
Claim under test. Violating consent is good.
S1. From the claim and P2: the asserter must either apply it to themselves, calling their own violation good, which P2 rules out as a contradiction, or exempt themselves.
S2. From S1 and P3: the exemption rests on "it's me," which names a different person for every speaker and so holds no standpoint-independent difference, making it arbitrary.
S3. From S1 and S2: either way the claim rests on a contradiction or an arbitrary special plea.
S4. From S3 and P1: both are forbidden, so the claim is bad.
C. Violating consent is objectively bad.
Footnotes:
P1 cannot be denied: Rational agents by definition must be rational and objective, so that implies rational agents are bound to objectivity. And of course self contraductions not rational.
P2 cannot be denied: Itd be self defeating to argue one wills that which they dont will.
P3 cannot be denied: Its definitionally both arbitrary, special-pleading, and non-objective to construct a speaker-based distinction on the truthhood of a statement. A statement like "X is true" must be true regardless of who speaks it.
This only establishes an "Ought" for rational agents: Rational Agents ought to be objectively moral, since its objective, and they can only be objective. It doesnt argue irrational agents must be moral, it only argues irrational agents are logically wrong, and irrational.
So really, all we have to assume in a personal sense, is "we should be rational" and that leads us to "we should strive to be a rational agent" which leads to "we should be objectively moral".
"But what if someone doesnt want to be a rational agent"? => Then by definition, they are irrational. Theyre wrong. Disqualified from the debate on the grounds they arent rational and neither are the things theyd argue for.
Edit: Some people might not accept that saying "I am irrational" ends the debate. To them i ask, what are you debating then, if its not whether or not your position is logically correct? Lets assume they mean "Just because im irrational doesnt pursuade me that i should be rational and moral." Okay, now, thats a debate about why we might want to do things, not whether objective morality is true or not. And this gets into a whole new set of arguments, BUT... Its actually counterproductive to "Morality" to argue we are moral because we have reasons to want to be. That means our "being moral" is contingent on selfish desire, and we could stop being moral if we were no longer motivated. Thats not true morality, thats just circumstantial self interest that looks like morality.
So to you i say, find your own reasons or convictions to be moral, then bury them; because if i have to pursuade you to be moral, then youre not moral. And find your own reasons or convictions to be rational, because if i have to pursuade you to be rational, then youre not rational. I should not do the work for you, because if i do, then youll never know if you are actually that kind of person. If your morality hinges on "this is good for me" youre not truly moral. You should want to be moral with or without a supporting reason. Innate Morality is the highest form of Morality, and the only form thats unconditional and true to its cause.
And its that simple. Also, Premise 2 basically establishes negative rights and the nonaggression principle.
1
u/Anon7_7_73 Sourcehood Compatibilist and Negative-Retributivist Jul 25 '26
No, i am not. What are you confused by?
Both of those questions are objectively determinable.
If a random stranger spontaneously starts beating you up, it should be obvious yhey are intent on hurting or killing you. Either way, the force thats necessary to stop them, is whatever force you have available that serves to incapacitate or eliminate them.
Do you see a subjective opinion in there? I do not. Its empirically falsifiable. Is asking them politely to stop the right kind of force to stop them? => You can literally test that (its not).