Why should we assume that, if ethical truth exists, everyone must know it?

Answer 1

We shouldn't. Ethics are socially / culturally based.

Webster: Ethics: a system of moral standards.

It is unethical to cook and eat a dog in the U. S. - not so in other parts of the world.

What was "ethical" in the past is completely "unethical" today. One needs only to look at slavery and the Dred Scott decision by The United States Supreme Court, and then look at Brown v. the School Board (I forgot the state - sorry, age) in the 20th century.

Ethical behavior can be, and often is fluid based on various cultures and political influence - whether it should be cultural or universal is a question much too big for me.

Answer 2

Must know should we? I think that ethical truth exists, but everyone does not know it. It has to be collected by the person or people in question. However, assuming it is not wrong, only that some represent the underground or underbelly of the society where the ethical truth is not enough nor absorbed. Ethical truth is the responsibility of the society, and it's more educational grass roots.

Answer 3

The assumption of the existence of ethical truth has to also include the assumption that God exists.

If God exists and ethical truth exists, I would reason that God must have put some mechanism in place so that we could recognize it. The Golden Rule fits that requirement, I think. Our ability to imagine ourselves in the place of others makes the Golden Rule feasible. The ethics of reciprocity is found in many different cultures and religions (see http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm)

Answer 4

If ethical truths exist, it should be known by all.
In my opinion, everybody should be ethical in order to live peacefully. The existence of an ethical truth would be meaningless if people would not know about it.

Answer 5

Well, personally I don't believe that. Mainly because different cultures have differing standards of "ethical truth." Oh sure - they all (usually) agree on at least some of the "big ones": murder, theft, rape, etc. are bad. But there is a LOT of variation when you get down to the "lower levels."
Here is what I'd say is a good explanation:

"Skepticism: Cultural Variation
Sextus Empiricus, moral diversity is everywhere on virtually every issue
Examples of moral diversity: burial practices, sexual morality
Argument from cultural variation
(1) If morality is objective, then we would not see widespread cultural variation in moral matters.
(2) There is in fact wide spread cultural variation in moral matters.
(3) Therefore, morality is not objective.
Objectivist response to premise 1: humans are flawed and often fail to grasp and follow objective moral standards
Objectivist response to premise 2: cultural variation in morality is not that widespread
Some issues of variation are non-moral, such as funeral practices
Societies around the world have some core values, such as prohibitions against murder
The Moderate Compromise
Compromise 1: general principles of morality are objective, and precise applications are relative
Compromise 2: although moral values are not grounded in a spiritual reality, many are firmly fixed in human instinct"

The 2nd link also has a very good article.
A sample:
"Cultures differ widely in their moral practices. As anthropologist Ruth Benedict illustrates in Patterns of Culture, diversity is evident even on those matters of morality where we would expect to agree:
We might suppose that in the matter of taking life all peoples would agree on condemnation. On the contrary, in the matter of homicide, it may be held that one kills by custom his two children, or that a husband has a right of life and death over his wife or that it is the duty of the child to kill his parents before they are old. It may be the case that those are killed who steal fowl, or who cut their upper teeth first, or who are born on Wednesday. Among some peoples, a person suffers torment at having caused an accidental death, among others, it is a matter of no consequence. Suicide may also be a light matter, the recourse of anyone who has suffered some slight rebuff, an act that constantly occurs in a tribe. It may be the highest and noblest act a wise man can perform. The very tale of it, on the other hand, may be a matter for incredulous mirth, and the act itself, impossible to conceive as human possibility. Or it may be a crime punishable by law, or regarded as a sin against the gods. (pp.45-46)"

Answer 6

Ethics and morals are ethics and morals, because they are universals. They are not only universals, they are also necessary. Thuhs they are binding on all men.

To live in society, is to live like the others, and to lie through the civilisation, handed down to us from the past. The moral norms are for every ones common good, and also for the good of culture and civilisation, and naturally, all must know them, and follow them.

Answer 7

This is a good point. If we are able to make progress ethically then we need to admit change and progress. Once we admit change and progress then we must allow for ignorance. It's hard to imagine these people claiming to be born with all ethical knowledge yet they are so imperfect. Perhaps they view their minds as oracles capable of perfection is they possessed all knowledge.

Answer 8

Because humans are all made of the same stuff, and we are made and programmed to respond to truth, the source of our being. What makes us all different is the degree to which we can or cannot respond to what's real and true, for various reasons and personal experiences.

Answer 9

Knowing it's there and acknowledging it's there are 2 totally different things...unfortuantely, denial is a beautiful thing to most people...

Answer 10

Right and wrong are concepts of government. You don't NEED to know what's right and wrong in your government, but you should don't you think?