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!

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Mar 25 2013: I'm afraid I would have to disagree with the fact that there is only "subjective morality". There are only subjective definitions.
    Part 1 :
    My personal theory goes a bit like this:
    - Defining morality and "Good + Evil" is usually subjective. (For me I define Evil as : "An intentional act to harm someone physically, mentally or spiritually") While other may view that Good + Evil are the consequences of actions, and the ultility + harm gained from them.
    But then once you have defined morality and "Good + Evil", you can easily use objective morality.
    In the way if it was my definition of Evil, you could calculate what actions would cause "harm" and what actions could cause "satisfaction" and mathematically value them.
    While I would define subjective truth as "the truth as an individual see's it from the data / knowledge he or she has". Subjective truth doesn't exactly effect objective truth.
    In the way lots of people can view that evolution is not true, and have logical and rational reasons for doing so! But this does not stop evolution from being true.
    I mean in it's simplest terms, using Sam Harris's example, is beating your child good for emotional and intellectuality growth? Probably not (if that is your aim). I mean if you found that beating children did not improve anything, and if anything hindered the child, then objectively you could say it wasn't very "Good".
    While my objective morality would depend on the situation, again to quote from Sam Harris (Just to say I developed my:own theory, and then it sparked when I saw Sam Harris's talk :D) : "It is usually good to keep your queen in chess. But this isn't an abosulte I mean sometime it is better to get rid of your queen to win the game. But usually, more than often it is better to keep the queen."
    There will be a part 2....
    • thumb
      Mar 26 2013: RE: "But there is always. . . " Sorry sir, your posts are too demanding time-wise. My attention span requires terseness so I am excluded from the more verbose comments. I have watched both talks and found them both to be provocative.
      • thumb
        Mar 26 2013: Fair enough. :)
        Basically summing up what I say :
        Once morality is defined it doesn't become subjective anymore and you can use objective morality.
        It will be hard to measure objective morality due to human bias, but it is possible.
        There wouldn't be any moral absolutes (e.g Killing is always wrong).
        Hope this helps. :-)
        • thumb
          Mar 26 2013: Ooops, you made a fundamental error in defining the word "objective". You say it is the result of agreeing upon a definition (which is a 100% subjective process). BZZZZZZ! Wrong! If there is even a trace of human bias anywhere in the processs then you are dealing in SUBJECTIVE, not objective information.
      • thumb
        Mar 26 2013: Haha. I apologise for getting my definitions wrong.
        I just feel that subjective morality them there is basiacally no morality. And that there is no,such thing as a 'right answer'. And it is just all a matter of opinion. Which makes ethics fairly useless :p
        While I feel that there is always a 'right' answer to these moral questions, otherwise there is no real discussing them. :) I mean 'slavery is wrong' that's just my opinion now. And I could kill you and that would be wrong.
        Hope this helps.
        Also It would help me a great deal if you could define objective, because as I understand it it is the answers independent of human thought. Correct?
        • thumb
          Mar 26 2013: Correct. Human thought, bias, or opinion has no influence upon objective data. Morality is a human construct and is, therefore, subject to human bias, opinion, and thought. Thus the answer to the posted question is, "Correct. There are no objective moral truths." There are only subjective rules and regulationswhich constitute Morality. Truth exists independently from human influence and is unchangeable. This brings us to the threshold of the spiritual realm which is not the topic of this post.
      • thumb
        Mar 26 2013: But surely objective morality can still exist.
        In the way : is this action beneficial for me?
        If you had all the data you could easily calculate this.
        And I feel that it is the most sensible option to try and form a moral code, otherwise there is no real way to make moral decisions.
        You could do this without biases and culture.
        Or would this be subjective as well.
        So like I said : defining good and evil is subjective. Once defined can become objective. Interested in your opinion!
        • thumb
          Mar 26 2013: My opinion is that objective data cannot be derived from, or the result of, subjective processes. You disagree and say objective morality can exist. If there is more to be said it is for you to say. I am now just an observer. Thank you for the free exchange of opinions. Be well sir.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.