Question

What do you think about the claim that "morals are objective because there are mutually beneficial rules that people would agree to if they were positioned as equals, fully rational and free"? Is this enough to make morals objective?

Answer 1

The objective moral code does not depend primarily on whether or not people believe in it. To be called genuinely "objective," objective truth must exist independently in our beliefs and perceptions. Interestingly, the statement often reflects relative morality. What's useful about this study is the idea that human morality doesn't operate in a vacuum. Morality is a dynamic combination of motives, effects, social and cultural values. The difference between objective and subjective morality is: morality is about the individual, his beliefs and ethics, while morality is not about virtue. Objective morality is a set of rules that individuals agree to follow, and people have certain standards that make them moral. Objective morality requires a morality norm that transcends human opinions and judgments. Objective morality protects human freedom with the light of moral truth. Therefore, the philosophers who support the nature of objective moral principles often talk of them as moral truths. We have moral rules of conduct, as a father cannot beat his child without the family 's approval. We do have moral laws, such as times when it's best to withdraw from what we do, and times when we should show deference to the most important figures in a society.