We have discussed the application of the moral standard to particular actions. In doing so we have presumed that there is such a thing as a moral standard. But, is that the case? If it is, where do we find such standard? Aren't moral standards heavily if not absolutely determined by culture? Don't different cultures have different and perhaps even contradictory moral standards? On the other hand, there is not such a thing as a totally capricious moral principles. Most societies, religions and cultures come to a surprising agreement regarding moral matters, such as do not murder, steal, lie, commit adultery, etc. Are moral standards entirely arbitrary and conventional? Are there objective grounds on which we can found universal moral standards?
23. Good is what helps something to be what it is.
24. Badness is the lack of goodness.
25. Good and bad does not depend on what we want but on what we are.
26. The greatest goodness of persons is the goodness of their wills.
27. All moral matters are practical matters.
28. Principles are not the imposition of the will of the authority but discoveries on how reality works.
29. Moral principles are discoveries on how to pursue the moral good of the person.
30. Moral principles are based on what we are; not on what we decide.
31. Positive moral principles oblige prudentially; only negative moral principles can absolutely.
32. A wrong object of the moral act makes the whole moral act wrong (MPC # 4).
33. There are some, narrowly defined, absolute moral principles.
Our conscience is not entitled to invent moral principles. It must look beyond itself to discover guidelines for action, just like our intelligence is called to learn pragmatic rules to interact with the world successfully. There exists an objective goodness or badness for things. The main point of reference to discover such goodness or badness is the nature of that something. This understanding offers hopes for a rational pursuit of moral principles as discoveries of what benefits human nature, encompassing not only for physical well-being (as dictated by medicine) but also the moral goodness, which pertains to our will.
Universally accepted moral principles affirm this objectivity, rooted in the universality of human nature. Wherever there is a human being, conditions for bodily, emotional, mental, and moral flourishing exist. Why would moral flourishing be excluded from the objectivity of principles? The same objectivity of human nature explains why the golden rule is a widely recognized and successful moral principle.
Regarding the question of how strictly objective moral principles bind us, it is evident that only negative moral principles could potentially impose unconditional obligations. Should we then bind ourselves unconditionally to narrowly defined negative moral principles? We can only achieve excellence when we strive for the highest possible standard, and the same applies to morality.