Preview

Objective Moral Truth

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
587 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Objective Moral Truth
OBJECTIVE MORAL TRUTH
There are many views on moral truths, which causes major turmoil in the world we live in. Were this a simple subject world peace would most definitely be solves in an instant, and pointlessly killing each other would cease. The question is are there universal objective moral truths? Are there irrefutable, accepted by everyone, moral issues that can be universally agreed upon by everyone no matter what age, race, color or nationality? My answer to that question is no, there are not any set moral truths that just come with us at birth. Although there are absolutely fundamental moral truths that the majority of the world agrees upon, but there are exceptions, which proves that people aren’t naturally, endowed with moral instinct. Morality is a product of cultural conditioning and social learning. The cultures throughout the world, and even throughout human civilization were unique in almost every way. Here in America we universally believe killing is wrong, even though it does happen everyone is aware of the consequences. What it does to the victims and their families, and what the law does to us. And the same is true for most countries connected with us. We believe this because of our shared religions and similar philosophical views. But what about the small villages in Africa, where children are given a gun and conditioned to kill.
It doesn’t take long to teach that killing is fun, and with no consequences. Now think about the war in the Middle East. Muslim extremists believe with all of their hearts that if they die for Allah, and fight in his name and die as martyrs they will go straight to heaven where they can enjoy seventy two virgins for all eternity. That being an example of the Devine Command Theory, where no matter how horrible, if gods says its good, than its good. The conscience is only as good as its moral foundation. Even through our own civilized culture we find examples of why moral truths cannot be

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    In this essay, I will discuss James Rachels’ article “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”, in which he criticizes the normative cultural relativism argument which is about how different cultures have different moral codes, thus there is no single truth to define “truth” or a correct set of moral codes because the idea of right or wrong varies within cultures. Firstly I am going to explain what the cultural relativism argument is about and then present my assessment of Rachels’ critique regarding this argument from careful…

    • 990 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Lenn Goodman Analysis

    • 997 Words
    • 4 Pages

    ARE THERE UNIVERSAL MORAL REQUIREMENTS AND IS SOME MORALS UNIVERSALLY KNOWN AS WRONG? CHALLENGES TO RELATIVISM…

    • 997 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thet Sambath

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages

    History has been no stranger to the multitude of genocides and mass killings in countries all over the world and for various reasons. There are infinite ways to narrate the occurrence of these atrocities; however, they are most frequently characterized as either purposive or illness narratives determined by the culture that is creating the retelling of these experiences. Genocide can be defined as "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation;" therefore to neglect the impact of culture in the created narrative depicting these atrocities would be deemed ignorant, primarily due to the fact that genocide and mass killings…

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    After reading “Some moral minima,” I must say I have to agree with Lenn Goodman’s opinions. He argues that there are certain things that are simply wrong. Though they greatly reflect his relativism, I agree on the topics he chose are all wrong in the eyes of another culture’s morals and virtues. We as human beings, and the societies we constitute can be wrong. “Consent is a helpful marker, but neither necessary nor sufficient to legitimacy. Some whose interests are critically affected by our acts have no effectual say in our choices. Principles are principles; no norms delineating concretely, and uncompromisingly, wrong from right” (Goodman, 2010). I agree there should be universal moral requirements…

    • 1089 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Soc 120 Assignment Wk2

    • 881 Words
    • 4 Pages

    There are some beliefs and customs that are considered morally justified in some cultures but in another, they are considered to be morally wrong.…

    • 881 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    In our society there is a lot of tension revolving around concepts of morality. Constantly people are debating all over the world whether or not concepts like abortion, homosexuality, gambling, affairs, divorce, contraception, and premarital sex are morally acceptable or morally unacceptable. Right now there are even entire societies that believe the American way of life is morally unacceptable. In Moral Disagreement by Kwame Anthony Appiah, Appiah writes about differing values and morals around the world and within our society. He points out, “we aren’t the only people who have the concepts of right and wrong, good and bad; every society, it seems, has terms that correspond to these thin concepts” (658). However, these concepts…

    • 1440 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    This is because according to Franz Boas, moral beliefs in different civilizations exist as long as the people do and believe in them. There is actually no right and wrong eventually.…

    • 662 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Gensler argues that this is not true because cultures can have objective truths. Also, moral codes moral codes can be a result of culture but can still show people how to live their everyday lives. The second argument against objectivism is that since cultures cannot come to a consensus on morality, there are no moral truths. The problem with this argument is that just because there is a disagreement does not mean that there is no ultimate truth. Gensler uses as a example that many cultures do not agree on religion, physics and such but that does not mean there is not a truth to these subjects. He also pulls that argument apart by questioning if cultures are as disagree on morality as much as we think. Gensler states that most cultures have the same standards when it comes to killing, lying and stealing. The last argument was that considering there is no way to resolve moral differences, objective moral truths couldn’t exist. Gensler argues farther that even if there was no way to know moral truths that would not mean that there are no truths. He says that there might be truths that we just have no way of finding or knowing about…

    • 629 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The attempt to assert that there are natural facts, the concept that is termed naturalism, is a form of moral realism. Naturalism is empiricist in inspiration. It essentially regards ethical concepts as derived from experience and not given to use by reason a priori. So the naturalist looks to the world in search of moral facts and values, hoping to show that moral judgements are really judgements about natural facts that we can discover. In terms of cognitivism, this also means that our moral judgements express certain beliefs about the world, because they refer to some sort of fact, and hence they are capable of being true or false. For some critics of naturalism, most notably G.E Moore, what the naturalist is trying to do is to convert all our talk of morals into talk about something we can understand better, namely natural facts about the world and human beings. In this sense naturalism is a reductive doctrine. It says that moral values can be reduced to, or explained in terms of something else. Naturalistic theories all agree that we can analyse moral terms such as "good" and explain them in other terms - but they disagree on the precise explanation of these terms, in other words there is no consensus as to what the natural properties are that moral terms refer to.…

    • 2399 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    We all come from different places and are born into different beliefs and do not always agree with one another in what is true and what is not. From television, to Internet and newspapers we get to read what surround us, what is happening in our every day life, but what are we reading and watching is it trustworthy? Can they tell us what is true or false? People disagree about many issues presented to them for example what is said in religion to what science proves and so on. This is where cultural relativism comes in, morally is correct to the beliefs and ethics of a particular culture within that same society. By this theory, no one can go against another society and say that their beliefs are right or wrong; it is up to one’s society where they choose what is correct or wrong. Philosopher James Rachels argues, cannot conclude a disagreement based on opinions on an issue and there could be possible a certainty of truth behind it. Considering this next argument provided by…

    • 574 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Everyone would kill if they could or were given the chance to do so. Such killers are convinced that they are more honest and open about their desires and, thus, morally superior. They hold others in contempt for being conforming hypocrites, cowed into submission by an overweening establishment or society.…

    • 814 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Cultural Relativism Essay

    • 463 Words
    • 2 Pages

    This premise of cultural relativism shows prefigure of moral relativism. Moral relativism can be generally grouped into three categories; (1) descriptive moral relativism, (2) normative moral relativism, and (3) meta-ethical moral relativism. Descriptive relativism, according to Frankena, is the idea ‘that the basic ethical beliefs of different people and societies are different and even conflicting’ [1973:109]. The second form of ethical relativism conceives the idea that ‘what is really right or good in the one case is not so in another. Such a normative principle seems to violate the requirements of consistency and universalization’[1973:109]. The last among the three reveals that ‘there is no objectively valid, rational way of justifying one against another; consequently, two conflicting basic…

    • 463 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The idea of right and wrong varies from culture to culture. The five tenets of cultural relativism going to depth defining moral codes. Complications and moral questions arise when one culture begins harming another—Nazi genocide, war, imperialism, etc. Geographic boundaries blur in our technologically advanced, globalized world. The most daunting logical challenge presented by cultural relativism is it hinders a society from judging the codes or values of another society and even our own (Lecture 1).…

    • 891 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    D. Lewis disproves the idea that the Moral Law is just a social convention by declaring that one cannot compare another culture’s or era’s moralities as better or worse unless one has a standard morality to compare it to. (12-15)…

    • 930 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    It has its premise and conclusion like all logical arguments do. Its premise says that different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, it concludes, that because of the varying moral codes, there can be no objective moral truth. Different cultures consider different acts to be moral and immoral and not all cultures will necessarily have the same opinions on all matters. Rachels objects to this argument by pointing out that the conclusion of the argument does not follow from the premise. The fact that cultures disagree on an ethical matter does not therefore mean that a definite code of ethics cannot or does not exist. It could be that “the members of some societies might simply be wrong” (Rachels, 48). To make the point clearer, Rachels uses the example of the Earth being flat. Some people in less advanced cultures believe that the Earth is flat. We believe from our observation and science that the Earth is spherical. Does it follow that just because we disagree on the matter that there can be no objective truth to it? No, it does not follow. Simply because there is disagreement over something does not mean that there is no truth in the…

    • 757 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics