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 17 2012: The word 'objective' is the root of the problem. Whatever happens inside the head of a person or persons is objective in the sense that neural pathways exist objectively. A similar argument could be made for the existence of God or leprechauns or kappas or angels: they objectively exist as images inside human brains. The ambiguity is that 'objective' can also mean that the objectively existent miscellanea inside our skulls exist outside our minds. (No evidence that they do, since science has discovered a multitude of subatomic particles -- but never a 'morality' particle).
    • thumb
      Dec 17 2012: Lol, if we are to believe everything that is objective is limited to the physical, I feel that is the worse type of bias... Not saying that you do Thomas, but... Objectivity is not limited to what is real, how we apply what is 'real' to an idea - theory formation (Plato's forms) - is just as important, if not, more important than what the real facts are, no?
      • thumb
        Dec 17 2012: The objective is not only physical (i.e. material) but also involves time and change, an additional dimension other than space in which matter exists. That said, our brains and our sense organs dimly perceive what is 'out their' and are quite capable of creating things inside our heads that go beyond that mysterious place called 'the world'. If one thinks about it, other humans are as inherently mysterious as are chimps or spiders or bacteria or methane gas molecules and we only dimly infer facts about all of these. I don't really know what 'important' means, but I know that female spiders often eat their mates and I'm OK with that. Ditto wars between ant colonies. I draw the line at innocent smallpox viruses using my body to survive and prosper. I have no moral qualms about exterminating the smallpox viruses that survive in the world. I have a big moral qualm with human genocide. Obviously (since genocides are human projects) not all folks agree with me and feel that a world without Tutsi humans (for example) would be just as desirable as a world without smallpox viruses. I don't condone human genocides -- and I like to think I'd have the courage to stand with those dying in a genocide -- but I'm going to throw my towel into the ring with Existentialism (especially Camus) and just say my moral choices are not anything transcendent. They are simply my choices. Patterns in my behavior. Facts on the ground.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.