What is moral truth?

Answer

Morality represents our distinctions between right and wrong: the boundaries that separate virtuous conduct from malevolent behavior. Morality does not define how things are, but rather how they should be. This suggests a sense of duty. Identifying something as “moral” indicates that we should actively pursue it, while something “immoral” should be actively avoided. When we label something as “moral,” we link it to terms like “good,” “right,” “proper,” “honorable,” or “ethical.” The essence of morality also implies that the alignment of those moral boundaries—the way those concepts are arranged—is itself a moral obligation, as that which is “not moral” should be actively opposed.

Truth serves as our understanding of reality: the boundaries that distinguish what is real from what is not. Truth explains how things truly exist, not how we desire them to be or how they should be. When we speak of “truth,” we bring to mind notions such as “actual,” “real,” “factual,” “genuine,” or “existing.” The nature of truth dictates that what is untrue or false either does not exist or cannot occur. Truth stands as its own imperative: individuals can either accept or reject it, but it remains unaltered by opinions.

At first glance, morality and truth appear to belong to different realms. Truth defines what “is,” while morality defines what “should be.” The concept of “moral truth” combines these two notions. A moral truth would be both right and good, as well as actual and real. However, given that “what is” and “what ought” are not always the same, the question arises as to whether “moral truth” can exist meaningfully and what form it would take.

Interestingly, comprehending morality necessitates a similar approach to any other set of facts: it is either objective or subjective. Objective morality—also known as “absolute morality”—suggests something that is fixed according to an unchanging standard.

Changing perspective. Objective moral principles are linked to an unmoving, universal point of reference. Subjective morals—also referred to as “relativism”—are linked to a changing, shifting, or preference-based perspective.

One issue with “subjective morality” is that it quickly becomes a contradiction in terms. If the boundaries defining what is right and wrong can be shifted, then the essence of morals itself is lost. One could potentially label the same decision, in the same scenario, either “moral” or “immoral” based on different perspectives. This, in essence, undermines the purpose of morality. Practical decisions could be completely reversed in such a scenario. The self-contradictory nature of subjective morality suggests that true morality is connected to something objective. Therefore, it is more logical to assert that “moral truth” exists rather than to claim that it does not.

Ultimately, the only rational foundation for moral truth is God. An uncreated, unchanging, perfect standard would align with the definitions of both truth and morality, simultaneously. Any basis for comparison or judgment ultimately depends on an assumed “absolute” standard. Whether the concept pertains to that which “is” or that which “ought to be,” the only logical foundation is God. This implies that what God deems “good” serves as the moral standard: this is “moral truth.”