1

Definitions: Objective moral values= a particular moral action which you ought to do.

1)Someone makes the statement "There are objective moral values".

2)People respond and say 'there are no objective moral values'.

3)However by responding you are upholding the objective moral value of telling what you perceive to be the truth rather than lying.

4) Therefore objective moral values exist because you cannot argue against it without upholding the objective moral value of telling the truth.

5) Therefore no argument against objective moral values is valid because by arguing against it you are upholding the objective moral value of speaking the truth over lying.

Please tell me what you think of my argument.

  • 2
    It’s not an objective moral value to respond truthfully. You are assuming what you are trying to prove – Sorfosh Nov 19 '18 at 21:10
  • "However by responding you are upholding the objective moral value of telling what you perceive to be the truth rather than lying". First, lying is not the only way of not telling the truth, one can also be mistaken, so not lying does not amount to telling the truth either. Second, telling the truth does not amount to upholding any values, it can be done on a whim, or because it suits one in that particular case. And third, people in 2) can respond by "Prove it" instead. What then? – Conifold Nov 19 '18 at 23:27
  • Someone arguing against objective moral values could also be lying. In fact, they probably would be lying, because belief in objective moral values implies belief in God, since God would have to be the sole source of objective moral values. Someone who feels uncomfortable about the possibility of a supreme being (i.e. God) might tend to rationalize against such a belief, as a sort of psychological defense mechanism. I think the only way to prove the existence of objective morality is to prove the existence of God. Or vice versa. – Bread Nov 20 '18 at 2:04
  • "please tell me what you think of this argument" is an off-topic question. We're here to answer questions people have about philosophy -- not judge the quality of their personal arguments... – virmaior Nov 20 '18 at 2:57
  • That being said, you might be able to redeem your question by asking "what type of argument" is this called in the literature? – virmaior Nov 20 '18 at 2:57
3

This is the fallacy of begging the question, as you assumed beforehand that "the objective moral value of telling what you perceive to be the truth rather than lying" exists.

0

Premise 3 does not follow from premise 2 for a couple reasons.

  1. Premise 2 states "people say", which doesn't necessitate it being a truth claim or a lie in the speaker's mind.

  2. A statement about reality or even a truth claim does not affirm honesty as an objective moral value.

You would have to insert a discussion on truth and honesty in between 2 and 3 because as of now, that person has not affirmed honest as an objective moral value. They made a truth claim about reality. They did not say "I think honesty is an objective moral value."

There's other ways to get to your point, as most people inevitably affirm objective moral values and duties whether they claim it or not, hence the prevelance of the problem of evil and the belief that e.g. murder is wrong rather than the inescapable conclusion of naturalism that murder, rape, etc. aren't wrong but just "survival of the fittest."

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.