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.

  • Dec 7 2012: Hello again Nic.

    You don't get the point...

    The word "moral" is an "IDEA" The word moral exists only on the "ideal"plane. It does not exist as something concrete ... as all of the examples do. ... an example of a "moral truth" is something quite different than the "idea" of something that is moral. The idea "morality" is existing only at the mercy of your own thinking. Had the human being not been able to "think of the idea" morality, it would simply not exist. ... In as far as "ideas themselves" really exist in "reality" we can only then begin to speak of them being "objective" or not.

    Take this example. I ask "Do you have any weather over there in New Jersey?"

    ... of course you do ... But the word "weather" is also a collection of concepts. ... and then, as soon as one presents a form of concrete "example of" weather, such as.. .... you may have rain today ... maybe snow ... maybe sunshine ... All these examples are then concepts within themselves that fall in under the "concept of weather" But the concept of "weather" encompasses a hundred different external conditions that we put, ... all of them under the collective concept of weather.

    The word "moral" or "morality" is exactly the same. It s a sort of "over concept" that must be filled with a "content" or meaning before one can begin to speak of its "objectivity"

    Does the idea of an "objective weather truth" strike you as kinda funny ..?? yes, and it should.

    The "objective" side of reality arises only when the content of the concept is first filled with meaning ... through an example. Its raining hard here, its very cold, its wet, etc. etc.

    The degree of "reality" that the "idea itself " has, from the collective world of ideas, would lead us off into a far distant discussion which I prefer not to go into at this moment.
    • thumb
      Dec 7 2012: Ahhh, now I see where you are coming from...

      Then we are at odds. I understand there are degrees of relativity in which I am not taking into account when I say "objective moral truths" exist. Yet, I feel your defense is purely a philosophic one, which can deteriorate over time. It is good but will only prove good in argument and nothing practical. Let's discuss.

      I understand your weather example, but there are a few contextual disputes.

      Let me first note: That thoughts DO exist in reality. You are using one right now to communicate with me; computers were an idea that were create into the physical world. Your brain is not a magical device; there are electrochemical properties which are physical constantly - you can measure the activity - they exist in reality.

      But besides this point. You are proposing something cannot be objective unless it can be atomistically measured (empirically amounted with physical objects being counted)? Well that's a poor argumentation (see first point). And one that relies on hard relativism.

      Your saying there is a problem with the word 'moral' - fine. You believe it is empty? Good. But you must realize this is an empty argument. When the word morality is spoken, people will understand, no matter where you are in the world; the idea of doing what is ethical (what is right over wrong) is a part of their religion, community, culture and family educations. No one exist without a moral lesson, even if they never used the word 'moral'.

      So, I guess I must give you the 'meaning' for morals before we can talk objectivity, because you never took an ethics class? Never did something wrong to someone else and felt bad about it? Never seen a mean act and violent event which you were able to learn from?

      If you wish to start at square one with what is ethical, we can. But the idea (morality) does not need to be filled, it already exist. Objective morality is the moral binding that is within all mankind, its there, but hard to measure. GL

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.