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 27 2013: Just because we are automatically subjective creatures it does not mean we cannot know the objective realities which many individual perspectives share.

    Moral relativism is just another fade of new age atheism, which is ridiculous and here is a link to my conversation where I feel as though no one really proved me wrong... UNTIL an individual decided to not separate ideas of objectivity and absolutes... Which is important, especially when considering 'philosophy' as a key point of conversation.

    http://www.ted.com/conversations/15328/there_exist_objective_moral_tr.html

    My closing statement can be the rest of the comment I can post here to assure anyone: objective morals do exist.

    Would you like to be punished wrongfully?
    Who loves genocide?
    "Starving people are the greatest thing since slice bread!"

    Yes, if everyone agrees on a moral truth it is as true and objective as human beings can make it. Want absolutes? Well I do not think anyone here is Godly enough to give absolute statements of morality.
    • thumb
      Mar 28 2013: Interesting term new atheism. I’m not sure exactly what it refers to, although I hear it bandied around by theists and the media. Is it just a label for contemporary atheism in the internet age? Are all contemporary atheists, new ones? Do they have to agree on some core positions in addition to not believing in gods. Or is it more behavioural? Perhaps a topic for another discussion.

      There is no dogmatic moral system shared by contemporary atheists. However, I suggest some of the most well known atheists Harris, Barker (since the 80’s), Delahunty argue there are appropriate objective moral frameworks. The facts seem to be completely at odds with your assertion about atheism and moral relativism.

      I suggest it’s often the theists saying without their god then everything is subjective, anything goes. Which is obvious nonsense if humans are going to live in groups.

      Perhaps what atheists often say is all the different personal revelation based moral codes seem the epitome of subjectivity. Also, if there is actually an interventionist god, it’s not good enough to assume its divine commands set the benchmark for morality without some analysis. Why is killing homosexuals and Sabbath breakers moral simply because a god says so? Its views are just as open to analysis.

      Which brings us to your examples.

      What is it that makes these themes generally agreed? I suggest in this answer is where the preferred moral framework lies and it is not because a god says so.
    • Mar 28 2013: To specifically address "Would you like to be punished wrongfully?":
      First, I would not use 'like' in this discussion. If my understanding of the definition of morality is correct, one would need to formulate the statement as "It is morally wrong to punish someone unjustly".
      For an excellent exploration of this question, I would like to recommend a story by Ursula LeGuin, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.