Is Morality Subjective? Steiner Says No.

The most popular philosophy of our time is based on a category error that was solved in 1894.

"Morals are subjective."

You have heard it. You may have said it. It sounds sophisticated. It feels tolerant. And it is based on a mistake in reasoning that Rudolf Steiner identified over a century ago.

Here is the mistake, and here is why it matters.

The Category Error

The argument goes like this: "I perceive morality individually, therefore morality is subjective."

Sounds reasonable. But apply the same logic to mathematics.

You perceive that 2+2=4. You are the one thinking it. Does that make mathematics "your truth"?

Obviously not.

The fact that you individually perceive something does not make what you perceive subjective. You are confusing two different things:

Steiner called this out directly. When you truly think, not remember, not associate, but actually think, you participate in something that exists independently of your personal preference.

The same faculty that perceives mathematical truth can perceive moral truth.

The difference? Most people have developed one and not the other.

The Three Levels of Moral Experience

Most people experience morality at one of two levels. Then they conclude that is all there is.

People bounce between these two levels. Personal desire versus social expectation. Then they look around and conclude: "See? Morality is either subjective preference or cultural convention. There is nothing else."

But there is a third level they have never accessed.

Someone who has never developed moral intuition will only experience levels 1 and 2. They will naturally conclude that morality is either subjective (level 1) or relative to culture (level 2).

This is like a colorblind person concluding that color does not exist.

The faculty exists. Most people have not developed it.

Why "Subjective" Is So Popular

Here is why moral subjectivism dominates modern thinking.

It is comfortable.

If morality is just preference, then nobody can tell you that you are wrong. Your choices are as valid as anyone else's. There is no standard you are failing to meet. There is nothing to develop. You are already complete.

That is appealing. It is also a trap.

This is like someone who has never done mathematics concluding that mathematical truth is just "what people agree on."

The uncomfortable truth: moral perception requires development. Most people have not done the work. So they mistake their own limitation for a statement about reality.

The Development Gap

Here is the core problem.

We have schools that develop mathematical thinking. Years of training. Structured progression. Verified results.

We have almost nothing that develops moral intuition.

So most people walk around with highly developed mathematical faculties and completely undeveloped moral faculties. Then they conclude: "Math is objective, morals are subjective."

No. You developed one capacity and not the other.

The real question is not "are morals subjective?"

It is "have I developed the faculty to perceive them?"

For most people, the honest answer is no.

What Steiner Actually Said

From The Philosophy of Freedom:

When you truly think, not associate, not remember, not imagine, you connect to objective reality. This includes moral reality.

The person who says "that is just your opinion" has never had the experience of genuine moral intuition. They have only experienced desire dressed up as morality.

Real moral perception is not "I feel this is right."

It is "I perceive this is right." The same way you perceive a triangle has three sides.

The feeling comes after. The perception comes first.

Most people have it backwards.

How to Respond

Next time someone says "morals are subjective," try this:

Watch them pause.

Most people have never thought past the surface level claim. They accepted "subjective" because it sounds sophisticated and because it is comfortable.

Challenge the assumption. The argument falls apart.

Developing Moral Intuition

So how do you actually develop this faculty?

Steiner gave specific practices. The Six Exercises. Pure thinking meditation. Self-observation protocols.

This is not abstract theory. It is practical development.

The Philosophy of Freedom is not just a book to read. It is a training manual for developing capacities that most people do not know they have.

What Philosophy and Science Say

Steiner wrote The Philosophy of Freedom in 1894. More than 130 years later, the questions he addressed remain central to academic philosophy.

Moral Realism in Contemporary Philosophy

A 2025 paper by Ivan Gonzalez-Cabrera in Philosophical Psychology (Taylor & Francis) titled "Beyond Minimalism: Why Objectivity Matters for Metaethical Moral Realism" argues that moral realism must commit to objectivity as a core feature, not merely cognitivism and non-error theory. The paper challenges Geoffrey Sayre-McCord's influential minimalist framework, which deliberately avoids requiring moral realism to commit to objective moral truths.

This echoes Steiner's position: it is not enough to say moral statements can be true or false. The question is whether they describe something real and mind-independent. Gonzalez-Cabrera argues yes — and that excluding objectivity from moral realism creates a framework too weak to do its work.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines moral realism as "the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world — features independent of subjective opinion." A 2020 PhilPeople survey of professional philosophers found that roughly 62% lean toward or accept moral realism, making it the majority position in academic philosophy.

Steiner's Ethical Individualism

Steiner's specific contribution goes beyond standard moral realism. He introduced ethical individualism: the view that the morally free individual perceives universal moral truth through their own thinking activity, rather than receiving it from external authority.

He distinguished three components of free moral action:

• Moral intuition — the perception of the ethical idea or purpose
• Moral imagination — the creative capacity to translate that idea into a concrete strategy for this specific situation
• Moral technique — the practical ability to carry out the intended action

This framework avoids both rigid rule-following (which Steiner saw as unfree) and arbitrary preference (which he saw as pre-moral). The morally free deed arises from individually perceived universal content — what Steiner called "an action determined purely and simply by its own ideal content."

Folk Moral Realism: How People Actually Think

A growing body of empirical research examines "folk moral realism" — how ordinary people understand moral claims. A 2018 paper in Review of Philosophy and Psychology (Springer) by Thomas Pölzler developed methodological recommendations for measuring folk moral realism, noting that many prior studies lacked construct validity. Research suggests most people intuitively treat at least some moral claims as objective, even if they verbally endorse subjectivism — a disconnect that supports Steiner's observation about the gap between what people say about morality and what they actually experience.