A Human Look at Morality

How can we know what’s right when everyone’s certain — and no one agrees?

Previously in the Series: What Is Morality, Really?

In Part 1 of this series, I explored the idea of the moral compass — that inner guide we each carry, shaped by culture, upbringing, and experience. I asked why people with strong moral convictions can disagree so profoundly, and what that tells us about the nature of morality itself.

I briefly touched on how philosophers from Plato to Nietzsche have tried — and often failed — to agree on what morality even is. That post left a pressing question hanging in the air:

If everyone’s sure they’re right, what does ‘right’ even mean anymore?

What Do We Mean by “Morality”?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines morality as:

Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Sounds simple. But these days, it rarely feels that way.

We live in a time when moral certainty is shouted from every corner — but genuine agreement is hard to find. Everyone thinks they’re doing the right thing. Everyone claims to stand for justice. Leaders make bold declarations cloaked in righteousness. Protesters fill the streets with moral urgency. Social media overflows with outrage and judgement.

So here’s the question:

If everyone’s compass is pointing in a different direction, where’s the map?

Is There Such a Thing as Moral Truth?

This is the question philosophers have wrestled with for centuries:

Is morality something real and fixed — or just a product of culture, history, and emotion?

To make sense of this, we usually lean on three broad frameworks: absolutism, relativism, and universalism.

Let’s take a look at what they mean — and how they play out in the world around us.

Moral Absolutism

What it says:
Some things are always right or wrong. No exceptions. No grey areas.

Where we see it today:

• Trump thrives on moral binaries: patriots vs traitors, law and order vs chaos.

• Netanyahu frames Israeli military actions as entirely just — above question, beyond debate.

Thinkers behind it:

• Immanuel Kant: Always do the right thing, regardless of consequences.

• Aquinas: Moral law is fixed — handed down by God.

• Natural law theory: Morality is embedded in the fabric of reality.

Why it’s powerful — and risky:
Clarity. Conviction. But little space for empathy or context. Absolutism can turn moral disagreements into wars of good vs evil.

Moral Relativism

What it says:
Right and wrong depend on where you’re standing — your culture, your upbringing, your history.

Where we see it today:

• Putin regularly dismisses Western morality, arguing Russian values follow a different path.

• Some regimes use “cultural values” to justify censorship, discrimination, or authoritarian control.

Philosophical roots:

• Hume: Morality is based on emotion, not reason.

• Nietzsche: Morality is often a mask for power.

• Rorty: Morality is local — defined by community, not abstract rules.

The upside and the risk:
Relativism can foster humility and understanding. But it can also slide into moral paralysis — where nothing can be challenged, and everything can be justified.

Moral Universalism

What it says:
Some moral values apply to all human beings, everywhere — even if we express them differently.

Where we see it today:

• Human rights movements, climate justice campaigns, and calls for global equality all rest on the idea that dignity and fairness aren’t just local preferences — they’re universal values.

• Critics of Trump, Putin, and Netanyahu often appeal to this universal moral ground when condemning oppression or violence.

Thinkers behind it:

• Plato: Morality exists beyond personal opinion.

• Kant: Reason reveals moral laws that bind us all.

• Martha Nussbaum: Justice starts with a shared base of human needs and capabilities.

Why it matters:
Universalism offers a foundation — but it’s not neutral. It can be seen as arrogant or imperial if it ignores cultural nuance.

The Real Tension

Most of us don’t live fully in one of these camps. We shift, depending on the issue or the moment:

• We use universalism to talk about human rights.

• We lean on relativism to understand cultural difference.

• We reach for absolutes when something feels morally untouchable.

But underneath all that, we’re still left asking:

How do we know what’s right?

Bridging the Gap: Can These Ideas Coexist?

One of the hardest things in moral and political life isn’t just what we believe — it’s that we’re often speaking completely different moral languages.

One person says, “It depends on context.”
Another says, “This applies to everyone.”
A third says, “This is non-negotiable.”

So how do we talk — let alone agree?

Here’s where it gets interesting.

The Negotiator’s Dilemma

In politics, diplomacy, even day-to-day life, the challenge is always the same:

How do you find common ground without demanding total agreement?

When moral frameworks clash, we need a more layered approach. One that respects context, searches for shared values, and makes room for principled red lines.

1. Start with Shared Human Needs

Even people who disagree on big issues often agree on the basics: safety, dignity, family, fairness.
Start there. It’s not a blueprint, but it’s a place to build from — a kind of “thin universalism.”

2. Recognise Cultural Lenses

What’s sacred to one group may be optional to another. Listening without condescension builds trust — and space for real conversation.

3. Respect Moral Boundaries

Everyone has lines they can’t cross. That’s not a problem — that’s identity. The key is naming those lines clearly and respecting that others may draw theirs elsewhere.

4. Translate Between Frameworks

One person’s “moral clarity” sounds like dogma to someone else. A good listener — or leader — learns to translate, not just debate.

5. Seek Overlapping Consensus

Philosopher John Rawls argued that we don’t need moral uniformity — just enough shared ground to work together.
Different reasons. Same outcome. That’s how pluralism survives.

So What Now?

Relativism says: Understand before you judge.
Universalism says: Some things are always worth standing up for.
Absolutism says: Don’t compromise with wrong.

Maybe the truth isn’t choosing one — but learning how to move between them, with humility and care.

Because if there’s no map, we’re lost.
But if there’s only one map — who drew it?

Final Thoughts

This post began with a simple question:

If everyone’s compass is pointing in a different direction — where’s the map?

Along the way, we looked at the three big frameworks people use to navigate morality — absolutism, relativism, and universalism. We explored how these shape our debates, our disagreements, and our politics. And we recognised that moral language can be used not just to guide or unite — but to divide, dominate, and deceive.

These frameworks aren’t enemies — they’re lenses. Each one reveals something the others can’t.

But when we look at leaders like Trump, Putin, and Netanyahu, we see something else at play — ego, ambition, and the pursuit of power.

These men don’t just operate within moral frameworks — they manipulate them. They use the language of right and wrong to serve personal goals: power, legacy, immunity. And when moral certainty becomes a shield for narcissism or authoritarianism, it’s no longer about ethics — it’s about control.

So maybe the real danger isn’t just moral disagreement. Maybe it’s when morality becomes a mask — a performance — cloaking something far less noble.

That’s why this matters. Because in a world shaped by political theatre, information warfare, and moral posturing, understanding how morality works — and how it’s used — isn’t a luxury. It’s a survival skill.

And maybe that’s how we begin to move forward. Not by choosing a single map — but by learning how to navigate with clarity, honesty, and a healthy amount of moral curiosity.

Because if there’s no map, we’re wandering.
But if there’s only one map — we’d better ask who drew it.

And maybe — just maybe — we find our way by asking that question again and again.