TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

There are no objective moral truths

When it comes to questions of morality, most people would agree that there are only subjective truths; this is because morality is viewed as intimately personal. It is difficult to conceptualize that there is one truth which is objectively moral. This brings me to ask if an objective moral truth can exist. Would an objective moral truth be one which is agreed to be moral by every single human being? This draws another question: if everyone agreed a moral truth to be true, would it be an objective moral truth?

Please add your input and opinions, I'm curious to hear your explanations and reasoning. Look forward to replying to all of you. Cheers!


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Mar 24 2013: Nunya,

    Morality is temporary. It is determined by individual cultures and peoples within those cultures at a certain point in time.
    Slavery was once accepted and no one ever questioned it's moral implications. Today it is quite different. One day a light went on in the heads of a society and they agreed that slavery was something that we should consider to be wrong or immoral.
    A few thousand years ago, in certain cultures in South America, human sacrifice was considered an "honor" for the "chosen one" ... what do you think people in today's society would say...? Moral attitudes have changed.

    Such questions are going on every single day in the minds of different cultures of people. Take the question of abortion. Is it right to take the life of a fetus? ....After how many weeks? ....8...10....12 ?

    There are even some scientists that propose it is perfectly OK to take the life of a newborn baby. ... because they have not yet developed a "personality" ... Many cultures in the world in fact practice just this. They cannot provide for a baby, so they set it out in the forest alone to die.

    So who's moral standard are we to use? ... the scientists? ... Moses's? ... Islam? Cut off your hand for stealing?
    • Mar 24 2013: Would you say there is a moral compass that effects most people , that evolves?
    • Mar 24 2013: daniel,

      Morality is temporary if it is based on the subjective. Morality based on Truth (thanks to edward below) is not temporary but may be temporarily observed. I think there is error in treating morality and cultural norms as synonyms as there are obviously those who practice a morality apart from cultural norms and pointedly does not seek agreement with the surrounding culture.
      • Mar 24 2013: Nunya,

        Give me just 3 examples of objective morality?
        • Mar 24 2013: I trust that you know of at least ten.
      • thumb
        Mar 25 2013: Why should we assume the truth Edward assumes is the Truth? Maybe the Atzecs had it right.

        Also there are about 600 Laws or commandments in the old testament.

        I note prohibitions on child abuse, rape, and owning other humans, or equal rights for women didn't make the top ten

        Oh but wait, we are commanded to kill unruly children. And its okay to own and beat slaves as long as they don't die within 2 days. Women are basically chattel and should marry their rapists And you should kill new wives who are not virgins in front of their Father.

        Some of his truth is truly questionable in regards to being a a suitable objective moral framework let alone an absolute morality. Assuming divine command of one code or another seems a poor excuse for not trying to figure things out for ourselves in my opinion.
        • thumb
          Mar 25 2013: I'v never got the argument saying that :
          God is required for objective morality.
          I mean if you believe in subjective morality then God's morality is just "his" opinion, and just his "subjective truth/morality".
          While you can still believe in objective morality (or view God has got it slightly wrong!) even without a God.
          For instance, as in my latest reply to this "idea", defining morality and "good + Evil" is subjective. Once you have defined you can objectively calculate them. Simple :)
          E.G If I defined Evil (Which I do) as : "An intentional act which causes harm physically, mentally or spiritually" then you can objectively try and calculate how your actions will do "evil". :)
          While I must admit I may be wrong in my calculation or may not have the "truth" but that shouldn't stop us from pursuing it!
          Watch : (Sorry to spam the TED Links!)
          Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions:
          Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions:
          READ my comment up top for more detail view! :D

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.