I am a pragmatist. I think things are real when treating them as real helps us explain, predict, and act. By that standard, morality is not that different from science.
Science aims to explain our universe and figure out what reality is like.
But science cannot give us capital T certainty. Since Descartes, we have known you cannot prove an external world from scratch. We are all assuming our senses track something real.
Still, science obviously does something. It makes progress.
Here is a simple science-style proof sketch.
Axioms
- Our sense data usually track an external world.
- The world follows rules that stay the same over time.
- Space has no special directions. Rotating an experiment does not change results.
Observations
- Kepler patterns
a. Planets move in ellipses with the sun at a focus
b. Planets sweep equal areas in equal times
c. Period squared is proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis
Conclusion
There is an attractive force between masses that weakens with the square of distance.
New prediction
A long-period comet will return on a predictable schedule. If it returns on time, the model is supported. If not, we rethink.
This proves something about the world in the scientific sense. We pick axioms, add observations, and land on a law that works. The axioms might be wrong, but I am not throwing out universal gravitation just because it rests on fallible axioms. It is useful and it keeps paying rent.
I feel the same about morality. I do not want to reject moral truths just because they also rest on axioms. Science should not get special privilege here.
Here is a parallel moral sketch about donations.
Axioms
- Helping people by reducing suffering or increasing well-being is good.
- When resources are limited, helping more people or helping more per dollar is better, other things equal.
Observations
- Charity A prevents about one severe harm for a given amount of money.
- Charity B prevents about ten severe harms for the same amount, with similar evidence quality.
Conclusion
Donating to B is better than A in this situation.
New prediction
If A later shows stronger evidence or B’s impact falls, the recommendation should change.
Same structure. Are we going to say the conclusion is false just because the axioms are not airtight? If we accept fallible axioms in science, why not in ethics, especially when the results line up with our experience and guide action well?
Objection
But Tyler, you can assume anything.
Right, so here is a bad one.
Axioms
- Dragons are real.
- Dragons kidnap children.
Observation
- A child went missing.
Conclusion
A dragon took the child.
Why it fails
It explains little, predicts nothing useful, and lacks independent support.
That is my filter. Keep axioms that pull their weight. They organize many observations, predict new cases, reduce confusion, and help with decisions I care about. By that measure, the basic axioms behind both science and morality are worth keeping. I think about the outside world all the time, and I think about good and bad all the time. Those axioms help me learn gravity and figure out how to allocate money to do the most good.
Both science and morality build models. Science uses things like particles and forces. Morality uses things like moral patients and welfare, or harm and benefit. Are particles and welfare really real? On my pragmatist view, they are real enough because they let us make progress. The dragon model does not.
So that is my basic reason for thinking morality is real. I am not trying to settle every detail or list perfect moral axioms and theorems. Philosophers still argue about those, and I will probably get some of it wrong. But just as I believe an external world exists, I also believe a real morality exists for the same practical reason. Treating them as real consistently helps us explain, predict, and do better in the world.