5.3 Universalism and Objective Moral Truths

Universalism and objective morality are key concepts in ethics. They argue that some moral truths apply to everyone, regardless of culture or beliefs. This idea contrasts with moral relativism, which says morals change based on perspective.

These concepts matter because they shape how we think about right and wrong. If universal moral truths exist, we can use reason to find them. But if morals are relative, ethics becomes more about personal or cultural values than discovering truth.

Universalism and Objective Morality

Defining Universalism and Objective Moral Truths

Top images from around the web for Defining Universalism and Objective Moral Truths

• 

  The three moral codes of behaviour | Clamor World View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | Universality and Cultural Diversity in Moral Reasoning and Judgment View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The three moral codes of behaviour | Clamor World View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | Universality and Cultural Diversity in Moral Reasoning and Judgment View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Defining Universalism and Objective Moral Truths

• 

  The three moral codes of behaviour | Clamor World View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | Universality and Cultural Diversity in Moral Reasoning and Judgment View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The three moral codes of behaviour | Clamor World View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Frontiers | Universality and Cultural Diversity in Moral Reasoning and Judgment View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Universalism in ethics maintains that there are universal moral principles or truths that apply to all people, regardless of individual or cultural differences
• Objective moral truths are moral facts or principles that are mind-independent
  • They are not relative to what any individual or culture believes
  • They would still hold true even if no one believed them
• Moral realists argue genuine objective moral truths exist (moral facts), while moral anti-realists deny this, seeing morality as mind-dependent, subjective, or culturally relative
• Moral absolutism contends there are inviolable moral principles that should never be broken (prohibitions on murder, rape), while moral universalism allows for some exceptions in extreme circumstances (killing in self-defense)

Contrasting Moral Universalism with Relativism

• Moral relativism holds that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (individual, culture, etc.)
  • Descriptive relativism observes that different cultures have different moral standards
  • Meta-ethical relativism claims there are no universal, objective moral truths
  • Normative relativism prescribes that we ought to respect the diverse moral views of other cultures
• Moral universalism is compatible with some descriptive relativism, but denies meta-ethical relativism
  • Universalists argue that fundamental moral principles (human rights, prohibitions on cruelty) hold across cultures, even if some specifics vary
  • Apparent cultural diversity often masks underlying universal values (valuing human life despite differing ethics around war, euthanasia)
• Moral relativism struggles to condemn clear moral atrocities (genocide, slavery) as truly wrong rather than just culturally taboo
  • Universalists contend some things (unnecessary suffering) are wrong regardless of what any culture believes

Arguments for Objective Morality

Intuitionist and Kantian Arguments

• Moral intuitionism argues certain basic moral truths are self-evident and knowable by intuition or rational reflection
  • "Inflicting unnecessary suffering is wrong" or "courage and kindness are virtues" resonate as objective truths for many
  • Critics argue not everyone shares these intuitions and their apparent self-evidence may be illusory
• The Kantian categorical imperative generates moral duties from pure practical reason
  • Acting only on universalizable maxims (what if everyone did that?)
  • Treating humanity always as ends-in-themselves, never merely as means
  • Kant argues these are binding on all rational agents, regardless of contingent goals or desires

Aristotelian Virtue Ethics and Moral Naturalism

• Aristotelian virtue ethics grounds objective moral facts in the essential telos (purpose) of human beings to flourish through cultivating virtues
  • Virtues like courage, justice, temperance, and practical wisdom are objectively good as they enable humans to thrive and live well
  • Vices like cowardice, injustice, and intemperance are objectively bad as they undermine human flourishing
• Moral naturalists argue objective moral facts are reducible to or supervene on natural, scientific facts about wellbeing
  • Sam Harris' moral landscape - peaks and valleys of human and animal flourishing
  • Objective moral 'oughts' derived from objective facts about the conditions for sentient beings to thrive
• Both see objective morality as grounded in objective facts about human nature and wellbeing, rather than just intuitions or pure reason

Theistic and Contractarian Arguments

• Divine command theory sees objective moral truths as deriving from the nature and commands of a supremely good, wise, and loving God
  • Moral facts are grounded in God's essential goodness and omniscience
  • "God is good" is a necessary truth, God's commands necessarily track the objective moral truth
  • Criticized by the Euthyphro dilemma - is something good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good?
• Contractarian theories contend moral truths are determined by principles no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced general agreement
  • T.M. Scanlon - "morality consists in what would result if we were to make binding agreements from a point of view that was impartial between the parties to the agreement"
  • Objective moral truths are the output of an ideal social contract made under fair conditions
• Both aim to ground morality in an objective source outside mere human minds/cultures - a divine lawgiver or an impartial contract

Criticisms of Objective Morality

Logical Positivist and Non-Cognitivist Objections

• Hume's is-ought problem and Moore's open question argument object that we cannot validly derive prescriptive moral conclusions from purely descriptive premises
  • No amount of descriptive facts ("suffering is painful") can logically entail a moral prescription ("suffering is wrong") without implicitly assuming a moral premise
  • For any purported moral fact, we can always sensibly ask "but is it actually good/right?" suggesting the moral concept isn't reducible to the descriptive facts
• Moral non-cognitivists argue moral statements do not express objective truths but merely subjective feelings/attitudes or imperative commands
  • Emotivism (Ayer) - "stealing is wrong" just means "Boo, stealing!" expressing a disapproving feeling/attitude, not a truth-apt proposition
  • Prescriptivism (Hare) - moral statements are disguised universalizable commands or recommendations for action, not truth-claims
• These views see appeals to objective moral facts as based on a conceptual confusion, committing a category error by misinterpreting prescriptions as descriptions

Error Theory and Evolutionary Debunking

• Moral error theorists contend all moral statements are systematically false as there are no objective moral facts or properties they could correspond to
  • J.L. Mackie - argues moral properties like intrinsic prescriptivity are "queer" entities incompatible with a naturalistic worldview
  • Rejects moral naturalism - what natural property could make something intrinsically reason-giving and motivation-entailing?
  • Concludes moral thought and discourse is infected with a false presupposition that objective moral properties exist
• Evolutionary debunking arguments suggest moral intuitions/beliefs are better explained by evolutionary pressures than tracking objective moral truth
  • Many moral intuitions (in-group loyalty, retributive punishment) seem better explained as evolutionary adaptations for social cooperation than as perceptions of objective moral facts
  • Widespread moral disagreement and the apparent contingency of our moral beliefs on upbringing and culture also suggest they don't track objective truths
• Both see our moral intuitions as projections of evolved attitudes rather than perceptions of real moral facts

Implications of Objective Morality

Implications for Moral Reasoning and Progress

• If objective moral truths exist, moral reasoning/argumentation can aim at discovering these through evidence and logic, with the possibility of moral progress
  • Moral disagreements can be resolved through reason, not just clashes of cultures/intuitions
  • Moral philosophy can be a truth-seeking enterprise, not just a human construct
• Without objective moral truth, ethics shifts from an inquiry into moral facts to either an expression of personal/cultural values or a pragmatic process of constructing norms
  • Moral debates become either clashes of non-rational intuitions/emotions or merely arguments about the practical costs and benefits of different norms
  • Moral philosophy is no longer in the business of discovering moral truth, but just studying the diversity of moral views or engaging in conceptual analysis
• Belief in moral objectivism can increase confidence in one's moral convictions, but may also lead to dogmatism and intolerance of differing views
  • Conviction that one knows the objective moral truth can motivate moral behavior and social crusading, but also breed self-righteousness
  • Moral objectivists must be careful not to confuse their sincere beliefs with infallible access to moral truth

Implications for Moral Relativism and Tolerance

• Moral relativism ostensibly promotes tolerance, but may leave us with no grounds to criticize unjust social practices or legal systems
  • If morality is relative to cultures, how can we condemn clear moral atrocities (slavery, genocide) committed by other cultures?
  • Cultural relativism reduces moral debate to "one person's opinion against another's" with no objective standards to appeal to
• Accepting moral objectivism implies we should align our moral beliefs with the objective truth, diverging from social consensus when necessary
  • Recognizing slavery as objectively wrong required rejecting the prevailing cultural consensus in its favor
  • Moral objectivism justifies reformers who stand against popular moral views in light of moral reasoning and arguments
• A pragmatic middle ground sees objective moral truth as a "regulative ideal" we should aspire to, while acknowledging the difficulty of achieving certainty and the importance of humility/fallibilism
  • We can believe objective moral truth exists while maintaining humility about our ability to know it perfectly
  • Conviction in objective moral reality can motivate the search for moral truth while intellectual humility can temper moral dogmatism and promote tolerance

Belief in Moral Objectivism as a Useful Fiction

• In practice, the existence of objective moral truth may be less important than believing in it, as a "useful fiction" supporting social cooperation and moral motivation
  • Belief that morality is objective rather than human-constructed encourages greater compliance with moral norms and inspires moral reformers
  • Shared belief in objective moral truth (even if illusory) helps solve coordination problems and reduce socially destructive moral disagreement
  • Believing "justice is real" or "cruelty is actually wrong" provides a powerful motivational bulwark against selfish/amoral behavior
• Pascal's Wager-style arguments for moral objectivism:
  • If moral objectivism is true, believing it has major personal/social benefits in moral motivation and getting us closer to moral truth (with little downside)
  • If moral objectivism is false, believing it still has major personal/social benefits and the metaphysical error is arguably harmless
  • Either way, belief in moral objectivism is pragmatically justified even if its truth remains uncertain
• Advocates of moral objectivism should perhaps focus more on the benefits of believing it than on establishing its truth beyond doubt