Can there be Objective Moral Truths?
(Before we even speak about the word morality we need to have a good definition of good or bad what is usable objectively and unambiguous).
Meaning & Definition
When we use the words right or wrong what do we mean by these words and what is it about certain acts that make them wrong. So when we look at certain acts what do they involve to make us come to the conclusion they are wrong.
What do all morally right deeds have in common which set them apart from all morally wrong deeds?
Moral Act = Promoting well-being, happiness and health also demoting suffering, harm and pain.
Immoral Act = Demoting well-being, happiness and health but promoting suffering, harm and pain.
Also understand that what i have stated is not subjective it is objective, it is not only my opinion that torture causes harm and affects well-being, because pain and suffering are real and measurable things. Just like how murdering promotes harm, so saving a life minimizes harm and also promotes the longevity of life.
We don’t need to agree that you feel pain or un-happiness when tortured for you to actually feel pain, just like i don’t need to agree that you’re dying for you to actually be dying.
A brain experiences happiness, joy, pain, an suffering so we can subject people to experiences whilst connected to a EEG (Electroencephalography). The EEG records activity in the brain, the activity it’s measuring is fluctuations of neurons. Now these experiences may be subjective to the individual but it is an objective occurrence.
But do we need certain technology to assert that rape or torture will cause suffering?
So we might give subjective accounts and descriptions through experience of events of joy, happiness, or pain and suffering but there still objective.
There is only Subjective!
Now we hit a problem because people might say it’s only my subjective personal opinion that something morally wrong can be defined as something “demoting well-being, happiness and health but promoting suffering, harm and pain”.
But it will be because there is no such thing as right or wrong definitions, the meanings we use for different sounds and letters will always be arbitrary and subjective. But what isn’t arbitrary and subjective is the thing you’re describing.
So if three people put there hand in fire, the pain they experience will be delivered in a subjective arbitrary description, but the pain is objective because it is inherent in all three.
Moral Facts Can’t Exist
Many people state that in order for objective morality - or even morality - to even exist we need moral precepts that admit of NO exceptions. For instance if it is wrong to kill it should always be wrong to kill.
So should we of killed Stalin, did he deserve to die?
So lets look at how we state a fact from a non-fact, in order to state something as truth we need to exclude certain ideas in order to state something as fact. So whenever we talk about facts certain opinions need to be excluded. And this is how we build a domain of expertise, this is what it is for knowledge to even count.
How is it that morality can’t subscribe to no exceptions, how can we state that every opinion has to count. How is it that every person or culture has a point of view what is valid and worth considering.
Did the Nazis have a considerable stand point on the longevity and welfare of Jews? NO! So how would of there point of view or values on morality and human welfare even be considerable.
So it seems in a sense we can state there’s right and wrong paths for the journey of humanity, and morality is relative to this domain. We can’t accept the difference in certain notions when it comes to human well-being anymore than on respecting different opinions on the safety standards of cars, houses or plains being built.