Moral Objectivism

Moral objectivism is the view that every individual has the same basic moral principles that valid for all situations at all time. This philosophy denounces moral relativism which is primarily concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Essentially this view takes into consideration that there are various customs that are accepted and other that are not in different countries. One example is that it is wrong to hit or shove someone because you feel like it. Objectivism stresses the importance of believing in justified propositions in decision making and that right and wrong are unchanging standards. Ethical relativism rejects the idea of the universality of moral principles, because situations change there is no fact of the matter about unqualified claims, it may be right to hit or shove because you feel like it because different cultures believe different things. Moral
Objectivism is an empirical claim that requires a systematic investigation since it is a belief that moral principals are shared globally. Two individuals, Goodwin and Darley, conducted a study and provided participants with a number of statements about factual matters, moral matters, conventual matters, and matters of taste. The conductors of the experiment would ask various questions regarding the different matters to discover that with each statement someone would hold the opposite view. The questions would be, ‘is the earth at the center of the universe’, ‘is it morally wrong to consciously discriminate against someone on the basis of race’, ‘talking loud and consistently to the person next to you is a permissible action’, and ‘classical music is better than rock music’. (Sarkissian, page 3) When the entrants would discuss why there were disagreements and seventy percent of the participants would answer that the other individuals had to be incorrect in their moral judgments. With