Objective morality and burden of proof

Aristotle once said that "not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." Objective morality strikes me as being one of those things. We shouldn't need to demonstrate that there are objective morals before we're justified in believing them.

I mean think about it. It can't be the case that everything we believe has to be demonstrated because that would lead to an infinite regress. If I say I know P because of Q, then I'd have to say I know Q because of R, and R because of S, ad infinitum.

The only way to know anything at all is if there are some things we know without having to demonstrate them.

And there are plenty of things we seem to know, though it's impossible to demonstrate them. You can't demonstrate that you and the rest of the world didn't just pop into existence five seconds ago complete with memories of a past that never actually happened. You can't demonstrate that the future will resemble the past or that any of the laws and regularities of nature will continue to hold tomorrow. You can't demonstrate that there's a real tangible world that exists independently of your perceptions. You can't demonstrate that there are conscious minds besides your own.

But your inability to demonstrate these things is no reason to doubt them. And I mean seriously doubt them. Sure, you can rationally entertain the possiblity that there's no external world, no other minds, no regularities of nature that will continue tomorrow, and no past. But the mere possibility of something doesn't make it reasonable to believe.

Surely it's more reasonable to affirm whatever presents itself to the mind in a compelling way than it is to deny them. The burden of proof shouldn't be on those who affirm the existence of the external world, but on those who deny it.

I think the same thing is true of morality. We can no more prove morality than we can prove the past, the uniformity of nature, the external world, or other minds. But at the same time, morality presents itself to the mind in a very clear and compelling way.

This is evident when you just think about certain egregious examples of moral evil, like rape, torture, murder, etc. Pick your hot button issue, and be honest with yourself about whether you think those who disagree with you are just different or mistaken. It is wildly counter-intuitive to suppose that it makes no moral difference whether you help somebody or harm them.

To believe in objective morality, one doesn't need proof or demonstration. One only needs to affirm the obvious. It is those who deny the obvious who need to have a demonstration.