everyone or every society accepts. The first premise (“An objective morality would have to be a universally accepted morality”) is just false.Here’s an analogy: Suppose I claim that there are objective scientific truths. That does NOT mean those truths are accepted by everyone or every society. For example, suppose the theory of evolution is an objective scientific truth. That doesn’t mean that everyone or every society accepts it. The theory of evolution could be objectively true even if some people or societies believe it’s false. Indeed, it could be objectively true even if everyone rejected it.Another analogy: Here’s an objective historical truth: “The Holocaust occurred.” But there are people (“Holocaust deniers”), and there could be societies, who reject this objective truth.Bottom line: Objectivism says there are objective moral truths, but it isn’t committed to the claim that there are moral judgments that all people/societies accept. The objectivity of moral truths is one thing; their universal acceptance is another—and unrelated—matter.(3) THE ARGUMENT FROM ABSOLUTISM (see Ch. 13 of text):(Premise) Objectivism is true only if there are absolute moral rules*.(Premise) But there aren’t any absolute moral rules.(Conclusion) So Objectivism is false.Absolute moral rule = a moral rule that has no possible exceptions—no possible cases in which it would be morally acceptable to break the rule. Absolutism is the view that there are absolute moral rules (at least one).The Argument from Absolutism is raised by people who think that an objectively correct rule would have to be one that has no possible exceptions.The most obvious problem is that the first premise falsely claims that Objectivism requires the existence of absolute rules. Objectivism says there are objective moral truths. This does not mean those objective moral truths are absolute rules—rules with no possible exceptions. Whether a rule is objective is one thing; whether it’s absolute is another. “Objectivism itself is SILENT on the question of whether moral rules may ever be broken” [65, emph. add.].
(4) THE ARGUMENT FROM DISAGREEMENT (see Ch. 14)(Premise) If people disagree about morality, there are no objective moral truths.(Premise) People disagree about morality.(Conclusion) So there are no objective moral truths.The people who propose this argument think that an objectively true claim must be a claim people don’t disagree about, which is false. So:The first premise is false. The fact that people disagree about morality does not show that there are no objective moral truths. That people disagree about morality is simply a fact about human activity (what people think and do). That fact does not address the very different issue: Are thereobjective moral truths? The question “Are there objective moral truths?” cannot be answered by any statement about human activity; it’s simply unrelated to statements about what people think or do. “Are there objective moral truths?” is about the status of moral judgments, not about what people think or do.