Correcting Kant: Trying to Build Objective Morality After Two Months of

Philosophy Study

We know we know nothing. But…

By Tom Wassermann and Ella Roth

We know we know nothing. But…

Over the past months, in countless discussions with each other and with others, we kept finding ourselves returning to the same fundamental question: Can morality ever be objective?

Well, we gathered that on a metaphysical level and by nature, there is no such thing as objective morality. Now, since that’s quite the depressing thought, we kept on puzzling. Where and how could something like this exist after all?

And so, what began as a class topic evolved into our own little theory on morality. We call it something like emergent inter-subjective consensus. And itgoes like this: First, we came to the following line of reasoning: Basically, trees don’t judge, and cats don’t tell lies. In other words, plants and stones don’t act morally; only humans do.

Therefore, morality exists only on the level of human consciousness. Only within humanity - assuming, as we do, there are no gods or intelligent aliens. If that’s true, then any idea of “objective morality” must function within this sphere - inside the human mind, across minds, and ideally shared among all.

From this emerged our guiding thought: while there may be no metaphysical or divine foundation for moral truth, humans can build it through agreement.When we try to find objective morality, what we are actually looking for is a morality that exists within every human mind in the same way. Because something can only be objective once it is universal. And something can only be universal once everyone on the planet agrees upon it. Pretty unlikely, we know. But looking at an example that isn’t moral, universal truths like “1 + 1 = 2” exist because everyone accepts them to be true. Similarly, if humanity collectively reached moral consensus, that morality would take on an objective quality. Let’s demonstrate this with the example of countries. Countries don’t exist on their own. Land is just land. They come into existence because people agree on where their borders are, what they’re named, who belongs to them, and how they are governed. Because so many people recognize and follow these rules, countries become real and objective facts in our world. Not because they are naturally fixed, but because people agree to create and maintain them together. This shows how humans can make something an objective truth by shared agreement.

Agreement then, becomes both the method and the meaning of morality. You, or latest Socrates, shall ask: “Why should we agree?” As humans, we rely on shared understanding of basic facts and rules. That’s how society works. It derives from coexisting. Without rules, there would be chaos. What’s so bad about chaos? Our initial argument for this, towards the beginning of this philosophy course, was: “More people happy better than less people happy.” We even had a little formula going on there: +:) > - :)". Nice try but not quite: what if a hundred people are happy about ten people getting killed? Consequently, this is insufficient as an argument.

Instead, using the same example of death; we as humans are wired to survive. The simple instinct of us pulling away from a hot stove can, indirectly but stay with us, prove why we should agree on things. What we mean is, our pure existence (life itself) implies the senselessness of death. This alone constitutes the necessity for societal systems. The question, for us, is not whether humans are inherently good or want to agree. Moreover, people don’t need to want to agree, but our coexistence depends on it. Therefore, agreement is not an ideal or preference, it is necessary for society to function and for us to survive. In short, chaos would bring disorder, harm, and ultimately more death, whereas rules and agreement prevent this and protect our shared existence.

Even deciding which side of the road to drive on illustrates this necessity. Rules like these can differ from one society to another, as long as they exist and are shared within those societies. Although, it could be worth considering that if the whole world agreed on one rule, such as driving on the same side, there would be less death overall. Global interaction, which is and has been increasing, demands global systemization.

So it seems not just useful, but essential, for humanity to work toward shared moral understanding, especially on the most foundational issues of life and death.

To address the challenge to our theory posed by claims that animals such as chimpanzees being proven to act with moral behaviouristics, we support our argument by the human concept of language. Like us, animals are driven by survival, avoiding pain, seeking pleasure, and sometimes caring for others, yet they do not use language to the extent that humans do. So it is language that makes us and our form of objective morality unique. Animals lack the capacity for abstract discussion, making their behaviours pre-moral:

Language does not simply describe reality; it helps to build it. It allows us to think of and develop concepts, ideals, and opinions on an abstract level. Language is the foundation for our perceptions of right and wrong in different contexts and situations, because it already shapes our thoughts by helping to form them. Building consensus, then, also happens through language. It is the web that connects and creates us and gives morality its necessity and actuality. The very ability to debate and formulate arguments makes morality discussable. It allows us to articulate norms and reflect critically on them.

How could we ever get to collective consensus? Perfect moral consensus may never exist. For instance, the flux of human population doesn’t allow for static objective truth. And of course the impossibility of knowing whether every human being on planet earth agrees on something, for it to become universal, already makes things quite difficult for this theory when practically applied. Essentially, we are aware that this is a utopian goal. Nevertheless, we believe it is worth striving towards.

Human experiences are not uniform. Differing values arise because contexts, histories, and cultures shape our judgments, and that’s more than okay. In fact, in many ways it is what makes us interesting. Life would be boring, if we all agreed on everything. For example, if everyone’s favourite colour was purple and we all liked the same music. Would different genres even exist? These differences are what bring innovation. They help us create new ideas, new art forms, and new ways of living.

So, instead of seeking total consensus, we propose focusing on the foundational aspects of existence shared by all humans.

Existing frameworks like human rights already attempt this, though not yet universally internalized. If they were, they would represent objective moral truth. Their universality is aspirational but unfinished.

For progress to happen and build such agreement, we need discussion. As Aristotle said on rhetorics, rhetorical means can persuade, but truth itself is the most persuasive thing. We think it’s not that simple. We believe more in something like Kant’s idea of an enlightened discussion; conversation in which people not only try to persuade others, but are also willing to be persuaded when confronted with better arguments.

We need discussions that are not emotionally defensive or unreasonable, but rather honest and open - where people truly listen to each other, try to understand one another, and communicate sincerely. Then, together, they can decide whether one of their positions is the right one or whether a new compromise is found.

If humanity could cultivate such communication globally, objective moral truth might emerge as a gradual, collective construction. That is our utopian goal: not an absolute foundation, but a continuously evolving process of shared enlightenment. Emergent inter-subjective consensus: a uniquely human possibility made viable through advanced language. We recognize that morality, like life itself, is dynamic. It is not static but fluid. An emergent phenomenon that evolves with generations. A phenomenon of collective consciousness - sustained by dialogue, education, art, and critical thought.

To conclude, if morality is a human construct, then it lies within our responsibility to shape it together. There is no natural objectivity, but there is shared human experience which creates the opportunity of building objective truth inter-subjectively. Language itself is essentially negotiated and therefore changes and evolves all the time. Through reason, education, and open conversation, we can move closer and closer to an ever-developing moral reality, an objective morality not pre-given but co-created.

If there is justice in this world, it has to come from us. Thus, to move toward a moral and just world, through emergent inter-subjective consensus, we believe, is the goal of society. Even if it remains an endless task.

Author: Ella Roth & Tom Wassermann

“Ella’s Take On” is a space to explore whatever concerns, shapes, breaks or inspires us. From everyday thoughts to bigger questions, anything goes. Ella’s little collection of pieces and perspectives that invite reflection, curiosity, and conversation.