Preview

Objective Morality

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
3369 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Objective Morality
My purpose in writing this is to argue for the existence of an objective morality based entirely on rational and scientific reasoning. By "objective morality" I do not simply mean that morality exists in the sense that various societies consider various actions to be immoral. What I mean is that certain actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of what any society thinks about them. In other words, I mean that there is an "objective morality" which exists independently of human beliefs and human civilization. There are many people who have the opinion that it is not possible to believe in such an objective morality without also believing in concepts such as God or an eternal soul. I believe that they are wrong. I will attempt to show that an objective morality exists and that this morality is the same regardless of which religion, if any, is correct.
Many people believe that without a religious framework, the only possible conclusion is that all morality is nothing more than a human construct without any objective existence. In other words, what morality a person or a culture accepts is like picking a favorite flavor of ice cream. Some individuals prefer strawberry ice cream, other individuals prefer chocolate, and no person 's preference is "more correct" than another 's. In a similar manner, they argue, different individuals and different societies have various favorite moral belief systems, and just as with ice cream, no particular set of moral beliefs is "more correct" than any other.
A common argument for this type of thinking is the following. Throughout history, different cultures have had vastly different moral systems. In fact, on almost any moral issue, it appears that there is absolutely no agreement or consensus shared by even a majority of the cultures throughout history. In addition to this, there appears to be no way to prove the superiority of one moral system over another using logic alone. So the only way in which one moral system can

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    This quiz consist of 15 multiple choice questions and covers the material in Chapter 1. Be sure you are in Chapter 1 when you take the quiz.…

    • 638 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The first ethical belief that the author discusses is Cultural Relativism. It talks about the how diversity is becoming more and more apparent between different cultures worldwide. The author mentions that often customs that are unquestioningly accepted in one part of the world are considered abhorrent in another, for example: human sacrifice. Cultural Relativism claims that there are no absolute standards for moral judgment. Basically says that the values that every culture isn't necessarily wrong, just different. I almost completely disagree with this view. The largest problem I have with it rejects absolute truth and its existence. If one were to make the statement "there is no absolute truth," they would have just proven themselves wrong because that is a self-defeating statement.…

    • 2415 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    A moral system is rational because it is based on principles of logical reason accessible to ordinary persons.…

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Soc 120 Assignment Wk2

    • 881 Words
    • 4 Pages

    We are taught the difference between what is right and what is wrong at a young age by our parents or guardians. What is classified as right or wrong can differ between cultures, races, ethnic identities, and by social class. We all have a sense of what is morally right and the relativity of it. There are specific traits and beliefs that are distinctive to every culture, race, and social classes, due mostly impart to the differences we have in what we consider to be morally right. The idea of universal morals shows that through our cultural differences there is still a connection to the moral beliefs that we share, and shows that cultures are more alike than admit.…

    • 881 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Some of us like to believe that we are all born of sin and into sin regardless of what culture, race, ethnic identity, or class. We all have a sense of what is morally right and the relativity of it. There are traits, customs, and beliefs that make us distinctive to certain cultures, races, and classes, which due to the differences we all follow, a set of different moral standards. Each culture tackles moral questions based on their own moral beliefs. Universal moral requirements are presented to show that through differences there is still a huge connection of moral beliefs to show that we are more alike, than we as humans are willing to admit. Relativism maintains when it comes to right and wrong there is neither, because what is virtuous within a particular individual, culture or societies morality must be understood and taken into consideration (Mosser, 2010).…

    • 1006 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good 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

    There are some people who believe that morality is relative to culture simply because different cultures have different moral codes, which makes sense because if every culture was the same then we would all fall under the same morality clauses and there would be no sense of culture. So as a culture it is wrong and arrogant of us to judge another culture because according to them, their right…

    • 811 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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s. There are no moral truths that hold all people at all times.…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory 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
  • Powerful Essays

    2. Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and…

    • 1686 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Divine Command Theory

    • 1962 Words
    • 8 Pages

    People are extremely motivated by self-interest, even as societies have evolved and grown larger. While the more intertwined societies did lead to a greater need for cooperation in order to live as peacefully as possible, the need to follow the rules of that society can still be ignored when self-interests are present. The need to live by a set of moral rules is well explained by connecting God and morality. As God holds a person accountable, following the moral rules is now is that person’s interest. So even while the person may act according to society, the actions are still explained by the incentives and sanctions placed by God with the promise of Heaven and the threat of Hell, respectively. However, the Divine Command Theory falls short by basing morality solely on God’s commands. Morality then seems subject to God’s whims, which makes morality arbitrary. The opposing view counters strongly with the existence of morals within atheists. For if morals are based only on God’s will, then atheists must be godless brutes lacking any semblance to a moral compass. The morality of atheists is clearly evident, yet the argument failed to establish a reason for morals other acknowledging damage done to the…

    • 1962 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Because of this dilemma, philosophers have tried to create a secular ethic in order to avoid it. But, according to Kai Nielsen, “Religious morality… may have its difficulties, but secular morality, religious apologists argue, has still greater difficulties.” He then explains that without some great consequence, or without any bigger purpose for living morally, then there would be no reason to live morally, or to even define what morality consists…

    • 532 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good 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

    Regarding moral relativism, it is difficult for me to say that no moral ideas should exist and individuals should have a right to create their own. This relates to the idea that, “moral truth or justification is relative to a culture or society” (Moral Relativism, 2015). We have laws for everyone to follow so that everyone is not making their own decision as these decisions might infringe on the rights of others. Ruth Benedict argues that morals are not universal but states that, “normality is culturally defined” (Benedict, 1934). She uses the term “normal” to explain what is excepted in different societies. She also states that, “the concept of normal is properly a variant of the concept of the good” (Benedict, 1934). What she is saying is that each society has their own interpretation of what is good or bad.…

    • 605 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics