objective truth in ethics???

Question

Can someone please explain what that means? like if someone states: If there were any such thing as objective truth in ethics, we shold be able to prove that some moral opinions are true and others false.

but in fact we can not prove which moral opinions are true and which are false....then there is no such thing as OBJECTIVE TRUTH IN ETHICS......
WHAT DOES OBJECTIVE TRUTH IN ETHICS REALLY MEAN????

Answer 1

Objective means something that is not subject to opinion. The opposite of object is subjective, meaning that it subject to opinion.

An example might help. We can use a scale to determine the weight of a stone. No matter who places the stone on the scale it will weigh the same. That is an objective evaluation of the weight of the stone (obective given that we are weighing the stone under prescribed conditions and to a prescribed precision). So you and I could agree that the stone weighs 25.002 pounds.

But we might not agree on whether a 25.002 pound stone is "heavy". If I can only lift 20 pounds I might say it is heavy. But if you routinely lift stones that weigh 200 pounds you might not agree that is is "heavy". So heaviness is subjective.

Questions of morality are full of subjective ideas. You might say it is wrong to steal. But I could argue that ownership is just a man made concept and why should any one person have any more right to own a particular object than any other person so how can stealing violate a right if that right doesn't really exist. Or I might agree with you in principal but sight many examples of exceptions to that rule (if I'm starving and you have more than you could ever eat it is not wrong for me to steal from you, or if you acquired something from me through some unethical means I am not wrong to steal it back, etc.).

Religion tries to impose objective standards into moral issues by creation of God, who is always correct, and then have God make the rules. So we get "thou shalt not kill" for example. But that's ambiguous and therefore its interpretation is subjective. Does it mean don't kill anything (even plants or bacteria), don't kill any animals, don't kill humans, don't kill humans who are members of your own religion, or what? Is it a rule that must never be broken or are there exceptions (self defense, protecting other people, protecting property, capital punishment for crimes, during times of war, mercy killings).

Answer 2

>Why do some atheists contradict themselves concerning God, science, objective truth, logic, reason, etc...? Atheists often contradict each other about many of those things (and as an atheist it sometimes drives me crazy), but we don't very often contradict ourselves. Do you have some examples to show us? >so God is not real because there is no evidence Wrong. First, there isn't no evidence at all for the existence of God, merely a relatively small amount (and not enough to outweigh the considerably larger amount against it). Second, whether or not there is any evidence in favor of God has no bearing on whether or not he exists, all it is relevant to is whether or not it is logical for us to believe that he exists. For example, there is also essentially no evidence that there exists a giant purple monkey orbiting Betelgeuse, but that doesn't mean that it is necessary for such a giant purple monkey to not exist, all it means is that it is more rational and useful to believe for the time being that it does not exist. Remember, although there is nothing preventing us from being totally rational, we are still limited to investigating things from a subjective viewpoint. >that means all things need to have scientific evidence before its real Wrong. First, your logic is backwards; you're extending a statement about one single thing into a statement about everything collectively with no other basis, which isn't logically valid. Second, since your first sentence was wrong anyway, this sentence isn't really saying much. >making the only things that are real materialistic Personally I see 'materialistic' as somewhat limited in what it conveys. However, in the broadest possible sense, this is correct, although not for the reasons you stated. >so do atheist believe there is nothing beyond our senses and science holds all objective truth No and no. The former is false, or at least rather seldom true. The latter is not only false, it isn't even really very meaningful; science isn't a thing of the sort that can 'hold truth', any more than a car engine is a thing of the sort that can 'hold motion'. >basically saying my logic, reasoning, and rationale are based on science alone Wrong. Science is based on logic, not the other way around. >then what about ethical and aesthetic judgments Morality is also based on logic, specifically logic as applied to the fact that sentient desire exists in the Universe. Ethical judgements should match morality, and an ethical judgement which does not match morality is not logical. Aesthetic judgements are personal preferences, and do not reflect anything objective (beauty is in the eye of the beholder), and although their existence must be factored into morality, morality is not based on them. >science can't prove why murder is ethical wrong nor can it prove what is good and beautiful That is correct. However, I suspect you are just misleading yourself with it.

Answer 3

the statement you use would refer to truth, that is inarguable. undebate-able.

as far as it not being a possibility, well thats because the goal is to have obejctive truth, but you get more than one persons definition of what truth on a particular subject is, that dont often agree.

50 people crossing the same bridge
is 50 different paths taken

go figure that huh

As far as it being attainable.
I say yes.
When a person takes away their personal opnions on a subject, in essence eliminates their own personal gain or history, only then is the person able to make a truly objective decision.

Not hard.
Too many people WANT, instead of just do for the sake of it being the right thing to do

Answer 4

Objective truth in ethics is basically the result of a collective agreement.

Answer 5

Objective truth in ethics means that a purpose is given for duty. You execute your duty because it has a purpose.

Answer 6

ethics is a code you live by
and different cultures / religions have different idea's
no right or wrong in the logic scale
only opinion

Answer 7

I'm just as confused as you.