I read David Enoch’s essay on a quiet weeknight. Kids were in bed. Dishwasher hummed. I had tea and a highlighter. It felt nerdy, sure. But I was pulled in fast. If you’d like to see exactly what drew me in, the full text of Enoch’s argument is available here.
Why? Because it tackles a simple, messy question: Are some moral truths real, like math, or are they just tastes, like pizza toppings?
Let me explain why this piece stuck with me, where it made me push back, and how it nudged my own day-to-day choices.
So… what’s he trying to say?
Enoch says some moral truths hold whether we like them or not. That’s what “objectivist” means here. It’s not about being bossy. It’s about saying, “Some things are just wrong,” even if a crowd cheers them on.
He gives a few tests that felt plain:
- The Spinach Test: If I say, “I hate spinach,” that’s about me. No big debate. But if I say, “Hurting kids for fun is wrong,” that feels different. It’s not a taste thing. We act like there’s a right answer.
- Disagreement: When people fight about morals, they argue like math teachers, not like ice cream fans. We don’t just shrug. We try to show who’s right.
- Daily thinking: When we plan and choose, we talk like there are real reasons. Not just “I want this,” but “I should do this.”
That last bit hit home. We argue and plan as if there are real reasons that don’t bend to mood. Enoch says our own thinking points to objectivism.
You know what? I think he’s onto something.
A kitchen-table story that changed my mind
Last year, a kid on my son’s soccer team got benched for speaking up about a coach’s joke. The joke punched down. I sat at the table with my husband and said, “This isn’t just not-nice. It’s wrong.” We didn’t talk like we were picking a new pizza topping. We talked like something needed to change.
I sent a note to the league. I slept better. Not because I won. Because I believed there was a truth here, and I tried to meet it. Enoch gave words to that feeling.
Work life, too: a small “should” that felt big
At work, a manager once asked me to round a number to make a report look “clean.” Not lying, but not honest either. I stared at the screen. I heard Enoch’s voice in my head (I know, a little weird): If reasons are real, this reason wins. So I wrote, “I can’t round it like that. It misleads.” My stomach flipped. But it was the right call. And that claim—“the right call”—sounds objectivist. Reading about someone who tried Objectivist philosophy for a year made that choice feel less isolated.
Quick hits: where objectivism felt real in my week
- I found a wallet near the farmer’s market. I could’ve kept the cash. I didn’t. Not because I’m nice. Because it would’ve been wrong to keep it. (There’s a great field note on trying to live as a moral objectivist that mirrors this instinct.)
- A friend asked if I’d lie for her about a missed deadline. I said no. Our trust matters more than a favor. (That moment reminded me of this experiment comparing moral standpoints: two moral lenses for a month.)
- My kid asked why we recycle when some folks don’t. I said, “Because it’s the right thing.” Not perfect. Still true.
- An uncle posted a harsh meme. I wrote him a kind note. I didn’t say, “My opinion.” I said, “That hurts people.” He took it down.
Take, for instance, the thorny debates around modern “sugar” relationships—arrangements where companionship is explicitly exchanged for financial support. They raise exactly the “Is this mere preference or is there a deeper moral line?” question that Enoch’s tests are meant to probe. For a clear, no-nonsense overview of the leading platforms that facilitate these arrangements, have a look at this guide to popular sugar baby websites which compares features, costs, and safety practices—helpful whether you’re simply curious about the phenomenon or evaluating its ethics through an objectivist lens. Likewise, if you’d prefer a street-level case study rather than a broad comparison, you could scroll through the local listings aggregated on AdultLook Lompoc to see how real ads describe boundaries, expectations, and rates—data points that make any moral assessment less abstract and more grounded in actual practice.
See the pattern? These moments felt more like math than toppings.
What I loved (and where I smiled)
- It’s bold. Enoch doesn’t hedge every sentence. That helps.
- It’s funny at times. The spinach bit made the idea stick.
- It’s useful. He gives simple checks I can use mid-argument without being a jerk.
- It respects real life. He knows we disagree, yet he still says, “Some things are true.”
Also, I liked how he tied thinking to living. When we plan—what job to take, how to treat a neighbor—we don’t act like it’s all vibes. We act like there’s a “should.”
What rubbed me the wrong way (just a little)
- It can feel academic. Some chunks read like a seminar. I had to pause and breathe.
- The math analogy is neat, but life is messy. People hurt. Cultures clash. He moves fast past that pain at times.
- Evolution talk (like, where our morals come from) gets a quick nod. I wanted more pushback against the “it’s all biology” crowd.
- He says we argue like there are facts. True. But many folks say “That’s just your view” as a defense move. The essay tells me why that’s weak, but it won’t end every fight.
Still, even with those bumps, I kept going. And I took notes.
A tiny scene: texts, tears, and a real apology
A friend and I had a blow-up by text. I wanted to “win.” Then I remembered: If moral truths are real, I owe her fairness. Not because I feel like it, but because she deserves it.
So I wrote: “I was unkind. I’m sorry.” She called. We cried. We fixed it. That wasn’t taste. That was duty. The word sounds heavy, but it fit.
How to read it without getting stuck
- Print it or load it on a tablet. I used a highlighter and notes.
- Mark the Spinach Test. It’s a keeper.
- After each section, write one sentence in plain talk: “What did he just claim?”
- Bring one example from your life and test it with his idea.
- Read it over two or three nights. Let it breathe.
Who should read this?
- Students or clubs that love debates.
- Teachers who want simple language for big ideas.
- Anyone tired of “That’s just your opinion” as a conversation-ender.
If you want quick tips or quotes for Instagram, maybe not. This asks you to think. But it pays off. For readers eager to see how Enoch expands these arguments into a book-length defense, details on his Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism can be found here. For readers who’d like to see how these debates unfold in broader philosophical circles, you can explore the archives at Full Context. For instance, I loved this candid chronicle of someone who spent a month reading Objectivist blogs.
The bottom line
Did this essay change me? A bit, yes. I speak with a steadier voice now. I still try to be humble. I still listen. But I don’t back away from saying, “This is wrong,” or, “This is right,” when it matters.
Enoch’s case isn’t perfect. No paper is. But it gave me a better grip. It gave my gut a map. And you know what? That’s enough for me.
TL;DR
- Claim: Some moral truths are real, not just tastes.
- Why it works: Our daily planning and arguing already treat them that way.
- Best parts: Clear tests, memorable examples, bold tone.
- Weak spots: A bit dense; life is messier than math.
- My take: Worth reading, worth arguing with, and worth keeping in your back pocket when someone says, “It’s all just