What If Right and Wrong Don’t Actually Exist — And We Just Pretend They Do?

system
Thu, 26 Mar 2026 18:09:48 +0000
Newsroom

This is one of the most uncomfortable questions in philosophy: What if morality isn’t real… but something humans invented? We live as if “right” and “wrong” are objective truths. But the data — and philosophy — suggest something far more complicated.

The Problem: People don’t agree on “Right”. Across cultures, history, and individuals… People fundamentally disagree about morality. Philosophers have long argued that moral disagreement challenges the idea of objective truth Entire societies have conflicting beliefs about:

Justice

Freedom

Life and death decisions

Even modern research shows: Moral disagreement is deep, persistent, and often unresolvable
Translation: If morality were truly objective… why can’t humans agree on it?

The three competing theories of morality: To understand this, you need to know the 3 main philosophical camps:

1. Moral Realism (The Comfortable Belief). Right and wrong exist independently of us. Similar to facts (like gravity). Many philosophers still support this view (over 50% lean realist)
Problem: If morality is objective… Why do intelligent, rational people disagree so much?

2. Moral Relativism (The Cultural Reality). Morality depends on culture, context, and perspective. Different societies define “right” differently. There is no universal standard
Problem: If everything is relative… Can anything truly be called “wrong”?

3. Moral Skepticism (The Dangerous Idea). There are no objective moral truths at all. Morality is invented, not discovered. Philosopher J.L. Mackie argued:
“There are no objective values”
Problem: If nothing is truly right or wrong… What stops chaos?

The hidden truth: Morality might be a tool — Not a truth. Here’s where it gets controversial: What if morality exists… Not because it’s true, but because it’s useful.

Evolutionary perspective:

Morality helps groups survive

Encourages cooperation

Reduces conflict

Social perspective: Societies create moral rules to maintain order. Laws = enforced morality
In this view: Morality is less like math… and more like a social agreement. If morality were just opinions, disagreements would be calm. But they’re not. Why? Because: People treat moral beliefs as objective truths and disagreement feels like threat, not difference.

Research shows: Moral polarization leads people to view opponents as bad people, not just wrong. Morality actually drives and intensifies division. That’s why debates turn emotional so fast.

The Paradox: We act like morality is real — But can’t prove It. Here’s the contradiction: We punish people for doing “wrong”. We argue like truth is obvious. We build laws based on moral claims. But: There’s no universal agreement, no measurable “moral fact” and no scientific proof of right vs wrong.

Classic example: Save one person or five? Tell the truth or protect someone? These are called ethical dilemmas — situations where every choice has moral costs. If morality were clear… Why do these situations exist at all?
**The Real Controversy - **Here’s the part most people avoid: If morality isn’t objective… then many of our strongest beliefs are built on something unstable. That includes: Justice systems, cultural norms and political ideologies. So what’s the truth? The honest answer: We don’t fully know.

But the evidence suggests: Morality is deeply contested, likely influenced by biology, culture, and psychology. Not as objective as we assume. Let’s push this. Do right and wrong actually exist — or are they just human constructs?

Morality is real and objective

Morality is created by society

It’s partly real, partly constructed

It doesn’t matter — we still need it

Final thought: We want morality to be true. But what if it’s actually. Necessary — not true. And if that’s the case… The real question isn’t: “What is right?”. It’s: “Who gets to decide?”

3 posts - 3 participants