TED Conversations

Nicholas Lukowiak


This conversation is closed.

There exist objective moral truths

I do believe there exist objective moral truths, such as, "a person being punished for something they did not do is wrong."

But, there exist counter arguments and positions which believe there are no objective moral truths, because ethical knowledge is usually subjective or relative which means they cannot be consider objective. Such as non-cognitivism and emotivism

Obviously the process to figure out what is objectively moral would be a difficult one, but can it be done? Consensually, empirically?

Are there objective moral truths? What are they?!?!


Closing Statement from Nicholas Lukowiak

Dear future interested reader,

IF there is anything to take from this closed debate, it is the fact one must define their terms and defend them in order to be 'right'. This creates monumental problems when debating with other people. So, try to stick with the most recognizable or common context of terms.

As far as being 'objective' I propose there is no way around being first subjective. While many believe since we are automatically subjective, we can never not be subjective. I see much error in this way of thinking, but appreciate the challenge of figuring out why. I believe in process/procedure in alignment with all of the universe. There is nothing that exist without evolving... Change in decay, [re]production, or [re]acting... Therefore, to assume there exist an 'objective truth' and then believing we can never know the exact nature of such... Seems counter-intuitive and only productive in a form of absurdity. The sciences are very successful building off of what is considered objective;by means of community, consistency and consensus.

Morality is individual. Ethics is the subject of morality. A moral decision is a personal one, not a communal thing. Although communities can dictate an individual's morals... The moral is still the individuals'.

I believe there are objective moral truths.

No one can make an argument genocide is proper or punishing an innocent is amazing! These thoughts are innately wrong for a reason... We are naturally endowed with wanting to seek social acceptance, and that involves questioning what we accept with how others treat us socially. If you, yourself, do not enjoy being harmed, what makes you think another would? What human doesn't want the basic needs of life?

What made people not want to accept my position is the immediate condition of the world... Well, the world, cultures, work in giant cultural cycles... Figuring them out helps.

Keywords: Prosocial selection and evolutionary psychology

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 6 2012: Most humans gather into groups from small clans to major socities and nations. Interaction requires rules/laws/morals, One group will be different from another group. Such things as headhunting; sodomy; religion; child labor; women's rights; racial segregation;adultery; ettiquette; human sacrifice; charity; cannibalism; etc. will always be subjective. One group will accept something as being right and another will forbid it as being wrong. Unanimous, objective moral truth cannot exist. We all know the difference between good and evil, but we do not live according to that knowledge. We are vain in our imaginations and our foolish hearts are darkened. Oh what wretched people we are, who will rescue us? Hmmm.
    • thumb
      Dec 6 2012: So you believe there are no objective truths, but we all have the ability to know from right or wrong (good or evil)?

      Wouldn't that ability allow even the most savage individual to learn why an objective truth would be justifiable? Like the platinum rule or 'Kindness is a virtue and not a vice'?

      Although a moral truth may be justifiable to everyone, does not mean everyone will practice that moral with everyone - that is not the question. The question stands; are there objective moral truths exist?

      Even if someone is only objectively moral to his friends and families s/he would still be objectively moral. The universality of a moral truth does not mean it will be used universally.
      • thumb
        Dec 6 2012: To repeat my answer: "Unanimous, objective moral truth cannot exist."
        RE: Your question: "Wouldn't that ability allow even the most savage individual to learn why an objective truth would be justifiable? Like the platinum rule or 'Kindness is a virtue and not a vice'?"
        I do not accept the need for "justifiability" of an objective truth.
        RE: Your response, "the question stands" makes me think you are seeking a particular answer. Are you?
        We agree that just because all sane people know good and evil does not mean they will behave any particular way.
        Do we agree that good=right and evil= wrong?
        • thumb
          Dec 6 2012: Your response is confusing.

          Truth requires justification, how would an objective truth not be acceptable to you if it were justifiable?

          This is a debate, and although I would enjoy learning more objective moral truths, I stated my bias immediately in the description, I believe they exist. If they do not, prove it in rational terms.

          If we can agree all sane people know good and evil, then there would be a foundation for what every sane person would find objectively true. (Note: in the debate of normal and abnormal psychology - there seems to be no such thing as normal.)

          Yes, I would argue that good=right and evil=wrong, objectively, but the measures for such objectivity may be various and subjective to an individual or group.

          Your last question denotes a objective truth no?
      • thumb
        Dec 6 2012: 1) RE: "Your response is confusing."-- I hope you are not offering that as an objective truth.
        2) RE: "Truth requires justification. . . "-- truth subsumes justification.
        3) RE " This is a debate. . . "-- the key word in your post is "moral". Morals change from one society to another so there can be no UNIVERSAL/UNANIMOUS/GLOBAL objective moral truth.
        4) RE: "If we can agree all sane people. . . "-- I used the word "sane" in a forensic sense only to indicate someone who is not criminally insane. I do not recognize psychology as a science so I have nothing beyond that.
        5) RE: "Yes, I would argue . . . "-- without qualification we agree that right=good and wrong=evil.
        6) RE: "Your last question denotes . . . "-- a question cannot denote a truth so the answer is no.
        Are you still confused?
        • thumb
          Dec 6 2012: 2. I equated truth with 'true knowledge' so I did set up the a poor proposition for your rebuttal. However an objective moral truth would be an universal piece of knowledge, if it exist, thus a true piece of knowledge - as it is always valid in any respect to everybody. So, in my intended context, truth does require justification as the truth equates knowledge in the concern of objective [moral] truths.
          3. No ethics change from society to society. Ethics is the topic, morals are the subjects. The question could be: Are there universal ethical principles in which morally overlap in every society? But I am disregarding society, not dismissing, but disregarding as your argument still does not negate objective moral truths. Therefore every individual can still agree on one moral truth while a society does not - such as, maybe, "kindness is virtue and not vice" or "happiness trumps unhappiness."
          4. Not recognizing psychology as a science is a flawed sentiment, and could be a source in which you do not believe in objective moral truths. Flawed due to the fact of your own proposition of 'insane' - therefore if law indicates insane, then there were psychological determinations in that labeling of a person.
          5. Rhetorical questions are declarative statements. You indirectly admitted there must be at least one objective moral truth; what is right is good and what is wrong is evil/bad. I believe in the topic of objective morality, that statement will always be true. So, thank you for disagreeing so well you ended up agreeing.
          5.a. The above response was in the mindset of virtue epistemology - knowledge and benevolence should be one of the same. Although somewhat off topic, there is no question that denying a virtuous epistemological view point is being absurd insofar, why would anyone not want to be virtuous with their knowledge in terms of ethics? See my response to Pat - and the psycho v. psychopath circumstance.

          Are you picking up what I am putting down?
      • thumb
        Dec 6 2012: No I am not picking up what you are laying down, which appears to be sophomoric sophistry riddled with frequent fallacies of logic and a generous portion of verbosity. I am outta here!
        • thumb
          Dec 6 2012: The subject of logic needs to be expanded as it is too primitive (as far as modern education goes) to handle metaphysical ordeals like the one presented here. However, cognitive biases (or just biases) are more appropriate to consider. And in that respect, I feel you are biased in your ideals of logic and what is good or bad rhetoric.

          With that said, I take this comment as a compliment, although it is a biased opinion.
    • thumb
      Dec 6 2012: To put it simply, primitive cultures develop primitive laws and beliefs; this is far from morality and ethics.
      To say that true morality doesn't exist is to say forget everything.
      • thumb
        Dec 6 2012: The rules of ethics, acceptability, and morality apply only within the culture for which they were developed. Loud belching at the dinner table is considered complimentary in some cultures and rude in others. This is true in primitive and in modern cultures. If you want to establish ABSOLUTE right (good) and wrong (evil) you must leave the subjective world of morality, ethics, and culture behind. As Mr. Anjorin says above, "There is an absolute right, and there is an absolute wrong. . .".
        • thumb
          Dec 6 2012: Social norms such as belching are much different then ethics, and your quote just contradicted your original argument.
      • thumb
        Dec 6 2012: 1) RE: "Social norms . . . "-- you say norms, I say ethics, acceptability, and morality. Belching is just one example. Maybe you prefer a different example? How about bribery, collusion, and influence peddling?
        2) RE: "your quote just contradicted . . . "-- by "your quote" do you mean the quotation from Mr. Anjorin's response? What is my "original argument" and how does the quote contradict it?
        • thumb
          Dec 6 2012: "There is an absolute right, and there is an absolute wrong. . .".meaning there are absolute ethics. This is contrary to your original argument: "Unanimous, objective moral truth cannot exist.". Ethics is wright and wrong, and it is not the same as culture or morality.

          And yes belching is much different then those other things. All of which are examples something that is wrong (an can actually cause wrong....). In fact they are all economically of society bad behaviors.
          Bribery is bad when it is used in bad context, quite simple.
          Collusion is bad when it involves companies benefiting off of lying, quite simple.
          Influence Peddling is bad because it involves bribery (sometimes) and unfair treatment by authority (which should treat people fair) whose job and duty is to be fair, also quite simple.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.