Topics like this have come up in this forum in the past, so I thought I would cash in on the various viewpoints the community offers on the subject of ethics. I have a term paper I'm writing for a philosophy course, and I've selected a passage from The Foundations of Ethics by Sir David Ross.
In the passage he is arguing that differences of opinion on ethical and moral issues does not imply that there is no objective truth. Rather, he writes that these differences can be accounted for by differing comparative values of one right or good over another, different circumstances in the culture, and difference of opinion on facts. Examples:
- comparative good: The right for a person (or animal, for that matter) to die in peace versus the good of preserving life
- opinion on facts: Vaccination being good or bad to a person largely depends on whether the person believes vaccination prevents disease
- opinion on facts: Fox hunting being moral or amoral depends on the view of the relative intensity of the hunter's enjoyment versus the fox's pain
- circumstances of society: Vigilantism and blood-feuds morality depends of the development of the society; a lawless frontier would accept these more because of the lack of government to enforce respect for life, while a settled society leaves law enforcement officials to carry out punishment for crimes
In evaluating the passage, I don't think Ross argued strongly enough that these differences account for all differences in morals between different societies and different individuals within a society. And so, I feel that his argument against the view that there is no objective moral truth is weak.
He also offers a positive argument for the existence of an objective moral truth, drawing a parallel between scientific and ethical reasoning and advancement. Each generation absorbs the progress in ethical thought from previous generations. In that way, he believes society edges closer and closer to absolute moral truth, consisting of very general principles which everyone agrees upon. The problem is that the three things that Ross argues cause differences in opinion will still apply, and ethics will still be something of a grey area, rather than being able to say with certainty that Action X is right and Action Y is wrong.
And so, your opinion. If there is objective moral truth, is it ever attainable? If so, what use is it if the causes of difference of opinion still apply to the absolute truth? If there isn't objective moral truth, how do you explain the pre-theoretic belief of many people that objective moral truth does exist?
I think I will do alright on the paper with the notes I have written now, but extra viewpoints always help. Thanks in advance to all.