TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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!

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Mar 24 2013: Absolute Truth is a redundant phrase, like Absolute Death. The word "absolute" is not necessary. Truth is not subject to, or determined by, popular opinion. Moral standards are subject to, and determined by popular opinion. Therefore morality is not objective, nor is it Truth. Socities create and evolve their own set of moral rules. From one society to another identical behaviours may be acceptable, or unacceptable. Truth is truth in every society no matter what their moral code says. If your question is asking if there is Truth apart from moral codes the answer can only be "YES". You say it is difficult to conceptualize one truth which is objectively moral. The difficulty is because you are qualifying Truth with such modifiers as "moral", "absolute", and "objective". Your phrase is a compound misapplication of terms. Remember, Truth requires no modifiers. I cannot offer an example of an "absolute, objective moral truth" because the phrase is invalid. Perhaps the question to which you really want an answer is: "Is There Truth?".
    • Mar 24 2013: Is not morality conforming to objective truth (agreed this, and absolute truth, are redundant expressions) not an objective morality? Is there a difference between morality and cultural norms? I would answer yes to both. You?
      • thumb
        Mar 24 2013: All morality is subjective. What is moral in one culture may be immoral in another. Such is not the case with Truth. In Classical Logic the Rule of Non-Contradiction states that data cannot be both true and untrue. You ask if morality conforming to objective truth is objective morality. No it is not.The reason is we cannot refer to Truth as a form of morality, to do so is faulty syntax. Truth is NOT a form of morality. Truth is Truth in any culture. Is there a difference between morality and cultural norms? The latter is a very imprecise term. If the question is asked, "What are the cultural norms around the world regarding loud belching during the evening meal?" You will get a range of answers. Morality is subjective as are cultural norms. I say there is no difference between the two.
        • Mar 24 2013: I did not posit a truth based on morality, but a morality conforming to truth. As to cultural norms, substitute prevailing cultural practices if you prefer.
        • thumb
          Mar 25 2013: But there is always a definitely answer to what will produce the most amount of utility and the least amount of harm. Which is objective. So in that sense it is subjective how you define Good + Evil. But once done it can be objectionably calculated. :)
          Also depending on how you define "good + evil" / morality greatly impacts whether you can objectively calculate it!
          Look at my reply above. I would feel bad about spamming too much. :p
          But I would strongly recommend you: (Sorry to spam TED Links)
          Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions:
          http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
          Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions:
          http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness.html
          READ my comment up top for more detail view! :D
      • thumb
        Mar 25 2013: RE: "I did not posit. . . " I see no difference between conforming to Truth, and Truth. That means it is redundant to say "conforming to Truth". Morality is subjective, Truth is objective. The word "norm" refers to statistical distribution and designates the nominal, or average datum in a set of data. How that might properly apply to a discussion of culture I do not know. The word "prevailing" has to do with being the most predominate, strongest, or most common. Again, I do not see how it could properly apply in this debate. Why don't we use the clear and simple terms "morality" and "truth"?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.