Are morals even real? If I said I killed someone, you would probably tell me I’m wrong. To answer the question, one must investigate whether objective morality truly exists for it to be able to persist through every generation. Well, if every generation before us viewed murder as horrific and immoral, then objective morality must exist to be powerful enough to have every non-psychopath believe that murder without just reason is wrong. If I have to be perspicacious, then there is one caveat we negate when exploring this question: the fact that we confine the investigation to remain strictly within the bounds of humanity, when the answer may lie beyond it. Of course, us humans adhere to the “common-rule” principle, where if we have reasonable cause to reject an action — like murder — being inflicted on us, then we also have the capacity to understand and therefore, act against that action being inflicted on somebody else; simply because they as a human, have the ability to experience pain, guilt, joy, anger, the same as everybody else — and this understanding is what drives the wheels of justice. Given this, if universal morality existed coherently and consistently everywhere, would aliens from a completely different interstellar system react the same way as humans if somebody murdered someone else? Perhaps they might understand that no conscious being should be harmed and have their lives ended against their will and therefore, be able to grasp why murder is wrong. After all, we as humans ourselves cannot fully fathom someone else’s pain, but we still comfort them. Hence, universal morality may exist. However, we still succumb to limiting this thought experiment to conscious beings, which are only strong enough to withstand very specific hypothetical circumstances. Say, the importance of human life is too illegible for these aliens to comprehend, now what? Well, now they become the equivalent of an object like a camera, simply being able to witness murder but not being able to discern why it is wrong. Thus, universal morality does not exist. However, does the previous example disprove objective morality or does it merely render the alien species incompetent? The latter would imply that competence is in relation to understanding, particularly, emotional understanding; though, detachment can signify intelligence because of its ability to make somebody efficient and productive through eliminating the strings that hold people back. Now, does that invalidate morals entirely? I argue absolutely not. In fact, it gives the subject of morals and ethics a distinct tryst with only humans — though it may be a social construct, subconsciously written by our minds and emotions, I find it brilliant how we have created vast frameworks to understand the human in us more. “Law is reason free from passion.” Now we’ve all watched Legally Blonde. After this discussion, it’s time I question that quote we think is indelible. If the law is how we govern actions done by people, how exactly, after the conclusions derived, can it be free from passion? The answer is simple, it is not. Whilst it may be free from passions in the way we’d like to believe it is, it tries to detach from personal passions; however, it can never expunge the only passion that is not personal: and that, is the passion of humanity. If you disagree, I ask you to try erasing that passion from another person, and in doing so you would already fail in your pursuit; and it is your job to figure out how.