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!


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Mar 26 2013: If you want to build a moral code form the top down of course you'll end up with something subjective, an objective moral code must be built from the bottom up. So go to the very basic at the very bottom, just a few examples to illustrate what I mean:

    Axiom #1: To be alive is good, to be dead is bad.
    Axiom #2: Survival is good, extinction is bad.
    Axiom #3: The survival of the species is more important than the survival of the individuals.
    Axiom #4: The survival of the ecosystem is more important than the survival of the species.
    Axiom #5: The preservation of life on earth is more important than the survival of the ecosystem.

    A whole objective moral code can be build upon basic, self-evident principles like this... And you don't need God or any supernatural force to tell you what is right an what is wrong, just open your eyes and see how nature works.
    • thumb
      Mar 27 2013: We can mostly agree that we want to survive for example. This means that you're personal morals will guide you to survive. In fact it's in our DNA to survive. We also know that we are all connected. So what promotes the survival of the whole also promotes your own survival. The problem comes when these values come head to head. What if my survival counters the survival of the whole, should I be sacrificed? The "greater good" argument is flawed in this way. My personal needs will almost always trump the needs of the host. Else we can justify killing everyone in America as it will solve the global warming problem...

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.