Building on the inescapable "ought," this reflection explores morality’s bedrock and its ground.
Before we get started, let’s define our terms. Think of epistemic bedrock as the floor we stand on — the way we recognize moral truths, and metaphysical ground is the foundation beneath the floor — what makes those truths real and solid.
In my previous post, I argued that morality cannot be reduced to mere taste. The skeptic may claim that morality is just preference, but the moment we use words like unjust or ought, we treat morality as binding and real. That inconsistency exposes the inescapability of objective morality.
But recognizing morality as inescapable only raises the next question: how do we account for it?
Epistemic Bedrock: How We Know
We begin at the level of knowledge. Some moral truths are as self-evident as the laws of logic. Just as no one needs a proof to see that 2+2=4, no one needs a proof to see that senseless murder is wrong. It presses on us with the force of obligation, not mere taste.
This is the epistemic bedrock of morality. It’s how we know. Certain moral truths are not discovered by vote or preference; they are recognized intuitively, immediately, and universally.
Metaphysical Ground: What Makes It Real
But knowing is not the same as grounding. Once we admit there are moral truths, the deeper question emerges: what makes them objectively real and binding?
This is where preference and consensus collapse. Neither your taste, nor mine, nor the opinion of a whole culture can turn an atrocity into an obligation. If morality is real, it requires a real ground.
Here, the Christian theological claim is that God Himself is the metaphysical ground of morality. God is not an arbitrary lawgiver inventing rules on a whim. He is the necessarily good personal reality whose nature is the standard of the Good. His commands flow from His character, and His goodness anchors morality in something eternal, necessary, and binding.
Why the Distinction Matters
This distinction between bedrock and ground is crucial. Without it, the skeptic charges us with circularity: “You say morality exists because it exists.” Not so. We recognize moral truths (bedrock), and we explain their reality by grounding them in God (metaphysical ground).
This avoids subjectivism while also avoiding circularity. Morality is both inescapable and well-grounded.
Conclusion
If morality is only preference, then “murder is wrong” collapses into “I dislike murder.” But if morality is both recognized and grounded, then “murder is wrong” expresses a truth that stands regardless of opinion, culture, or taste. That truth points us beyond ourselves to the One whose nature is the standard of all goodness.
For more on this, see earlier posts:
If Morality is Real, So is its Source (part 1)
The Inescapable “Ought”: Further Reflections on Objective Morality (part 2)