The pull of moral objectivity is strong. It feels different from matters of taste. Liking vanilla more than chocolate is a preference; condemning cruelty feels like recognising a fact. If morality is objective, these facts hold whether we acknowledge them or not, and our disagreements are like disputes over geography rather than fashion.

Skeptics argue that morality is built from human perspectives. Values emerge from our needs, emotions, and cultures. The wide variation in moral codes across history and geography seems to support this view. If people can disagree so deeply, perhaps there is no single truth to find, only many ways of living.

Yet this flexibility can be unsettling. If morality is entirely subjective, on what grounds can we condemn slavery, genocide, or oppression beyond saying we dislike them? The idea that some acts are wrong for everyone, everywhere, seems to anchor our sense of justice.

Some try to reconcile the two positions. They suggest that moral truths depend on features of human life that are universal enough to serve as a common standard, even if they are not written into the fabric of the universe. Others see morality as a shared project: its authority comes from our collective commitment to principles that make social life possible.

The debate is less about picking a side once and for all than about recognising the stakes. If morality is objective, our task is to discover and live by its truths. If it is not, we must take responsibility for building and defending the values we choose, knowing they rest on nothing beyond us. Either way, the question forces us to examine why we think some things are right and others wrong, and how far those convictions can be justified.

‍