By objective morality, I mean the belief that there exist moral principles which makes actions moral or immoral regardless of subjective perception.

I want to know if there are (reputable) articles arguing in favour of objective morality's existence, or articles suggesting that one should believe in objective morality regardless of whether or not objective morality exists.

  • 2
    These kinds of questions are too broad for this site and are better addressed by reading encyclopedia articles, e.g. Wikipedia's or SEP's.
    – Conifold
    Apr 4 '20 at 1:11
  • The ethics of the Perennial philosophy may be what you're after. All else follows, Lao Tsu tells us, from 'Tao being what it is'. The complication would be the word 'objective', This view asks us to go beyond the subjective-objective' distinction since it would not be fundamental. So, I don't think this can be called an 'objective' morality. but it is metaphysically grounded.so it could be called fundamental or (in a sense) 'empirical'. .
    – user20253
    Apr 5 '20 at 13:10

The three major schools of ethical thought are the following: (1) Utilitarianism; (2) Deontology; and (3) Virtue Ethics. If you're interested in a truly objective system, then consider the second category.

Immanuel Kant, probably the most famous deontologist, for example, viewed morals as deriving a priori from the Supreme Principle of Morality, which commands categorically across three formulations. For Kant, an action does not derive its merit from the consequences that arise from it; and an action can never be moral of it violates the Categorical Imperative.

If you want a starting place, I would suggest Plato's Euthyphro (see the Euthyphro dilemma). All good inquiries about objectivity and subjectivity begin there.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.