3. This brings me to my third point, which is perhaps the most obvious: everyone seems to have an innate feeling that some things are objectively good and others objectively bad. In the same way, all human beings have an innate intuition that they have free will and that the external universe actually exists. Now, these intuitions may well be illusions. But I think it is undeniable that they exist. I recently saw first-hand evidence of this fact while dealing with my two-and-a-half-year-old son. As parents, we need to teach him to share, to be kind, to be gentle, and to do good. It is often a difficult task to teach him how to do good. But he never once asked me what I meant by “good.” In fact, he assumes that some things are objectively good and others are objectively bad. He does not sometimes confuse “good” with “what mom and dad impose on me” or “what will ultimately be to my advantage”. Another equally important point is that I can`t even begin to imagine how a true moral relativist would raise a child. When a child asks his parents why he shouldn`t hit his sister, I find it hard to believe that the moral relativist answers, “Out of self-interest.

If you hit her, she could beat you. Nor would parents say, “Because I am greater than you and I will punish you if you don`t obey. Even the most committed moral relativist will respond: “Striking is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Love, generosity and kindness are good. Now, the moral relativist might console himself by thinking that he is merely introducing a fictitious abbreviation that will be replaced by the life-giving truth of moral relativism once the child is old enough to understand it. But I find it extremely interesting that thinking in objective moral terms is almost inevitable for children and parents. Many cultures teach that God or gods determine moral values, but these are often the most prescriptive, oppressive, and misogynistic examples of forced cultural mores. People who cling to this perspective often claim that their morality is the only true objective morality, but unfortunately, it seems that by invoking God to rationalize one`s morality, everything, including the wildest actions, can be superficially justified by it. There are many beliefs that have changed over time.

It was once believed that slavery was moral. Now, slavery is considered reprehensible. Morality can even change quickly. Ten years ago, America`s belief in same-sex marriage was very different from what it is today. The first answer accurately explains objective moral values, and I want to dispel a common misconception: the confusion of objective moral values with absolute moral values. One argument against objective morality has to do with the fact that what we think is moral and immoral seems to change over time and depends on where you live. Different countries and religions will have different morals. There may be some similarities, such as seeing murder and theft as harmful, but this morality tends to come from empathy, which is a trait we`ve evolved with. 1) Dispute between two or more persons. [1] When conflicts arise, individuals assume that there is an objective standard of right and wrong that each person is aware of and violated. Why argue when there is no objective standard? For morality to be objective, moral statements such as “killing is bad,” “stealing is bad,” etc. must be true regardless of who utters them.

First, let`s define what we mean by “objective moral values.” Objective moral values are qualities such as kindness or love that are morally good regardless of people`s beliefs. For this reason, philosophers who affirm the existence of objective moral values sometimes speak of them as moral facts. An alleged fact may be true or false, but it is qualitatively different from an opinion that is a matter of personal preference. So when we say that objective moral values exist, we mean that a statement like “murder is evil” makes a statement about an objective moral reality, just as the statement “There`s a chair in my kitchen” makes a statement about objective physical reality. In contrast, a moral relativist claims that a statement such as “murder is wrong” is a subjective statement about our (or our society`s) preference. The statement “murder is evil” expresses a subjective preference similar to statements “curry is delicious” or “bluegrass is the best kind of music”. If there are objective moral values, then claims such as “the Holocaust was wrong” can be objectively true.