I am a moral realist. Despite the name and the poll in the opening prompt, most people I encountered in my undergraduate and postgraduate education would consider the point-of-view that there is objective moral truth unrealistic, instead preferring moral anti-realism, specifically moral relativism. I understand why relativism is attractive. It validates the intuitions we have when confronted with difficult (maybe even paradoxical) situations, i.e., that objective moral decisions are impossible to reach; therefore, morality must be subjective. I cannot support this conclusion because it proves too much when applied broadly.
Life does not exist in purely gray areas, there are black-and-white ethical decisions that an ethical paradigm must cooperate with as well, and moral relativism fails in these situations. For example, it is undeniable that rape is never appropriate. Rational citizens instinctively know that rape is unethical and cannot be justified by a perpetrator’s cultural background, familial influences, or religion. It is an a priori repugnant act. It may be challenging to put a finger on the exact meta-ethical1 “Metaethics is the attempt to understand the metaphysical, epistemological, semantic, and psychological, presuppositions and commitments of moral thought, talk and practice. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/ justification for why it is ethically repugnant, but it is repugnant nonetheless.
In what may be a great irony, I am not proclaiming that the perspective I have adopted is the right one, but that it is the perspective I believe best defines objective moral truth. I subscribe to deontology–put simply there are universal moral truths that direct what we ought to do.2 See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/ for a more in-depth definition, overview, and discussion of deontology than what I have space for here. As opposed to a teleological justification for moral realism, deontology does not justify what is right by the action’s consequence. Instead, a deontologist considers the motivations underlying the act to be paramount.
While not a perfect explanation, I lean toward the Kantian position on ethics. Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative that we ought to “[a]ct in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end,” is a beautiful and instructive guiding principle. Kant’s formulation is special because it recognizes that we owe others a duty due to their inherent dignity. This notion of inviolate human dignity separates a Kantian perspective from popular teleological perspectives.3 ”Utilitarianism favors what is good “without referring to what is right.” Rawls, J. (1999). In A theory of justice: Revised edition (p. 12).
Moral realism admittedly stumbles with providing clarity in difficult situations most would call moral gray areas, but rather than a reason to raise the white flag, this should be a call for action. It demonstrates that further thought is needed to refine the theory to make it an ethical theory of everything. The alternative is an untenable perspective that neither provides guidance in gray areas nor the black and white ones. Given this choice, I would rather tilt at windmills than surrender to apathy.