Conversations with Angie: Differing moral opinions do not negate the existence of objective moral values

Angie,

Your last email about the moral argument provides a smooth transition into the next part of the argument. Premise 2 states that there are objective moral values. One of the primary arguments against objective moral values is the fact that cultures have differed in their moral views. I don't know if that's what you were getting at, but I figured it was worth saying something about. Before I go into why I think there are objective moral values, I first want to give a few responses to that argument.

First, it just doesn't follow that because two people have a disagreement that neither is right. People once differed on whether the earth was flat or round, but the earth didn't become shapeless as a result. People may differ on whether or not there are any objective moral values, but it doesn't follow that there is no answer to the question. The fact that people may differ on morality has no bearing on whether objective moral values exist or not.

Second, as C.S. Lewis demonstrated in the appendix to The Abolition of Man, cultures have agreed far more on morality than they have disagreed. It appears that there are some moral values that are universally held.

Third, all it takes for it to be true that objective moral values exist is that there is one objective moral value. We could grant that all other moral views are subjective, but if there is just one moral value that is objective, than the second premise in the moral argument is true.

So basically, the fact that cultures may have some differences in moral opinions doesn't mean there are no objective moral values. However, their differences do raise another issue. If people differ on their moral opinions, that may demonstrate that objective moral values are not universally known.

to be continued...

Conversations with Angie:  Moral differences do not show that morals aren't universally known