Question

" Objectivism fails to account for moral disagreement" what's your position on this statement

Answer 1

moral values have been one of the most disputable subjects of inquiry. Ever since we evolved into autonomous beings, the question of whether there are any objective values has led to various interpretations, broadly splitting up into two main forms of theories: moral non-objectivists (relativists) and moral objectivists.

Objectivists support the meta–ethical claim of objective values. So, what are objective values? As Plato states: ‘‘There is an absolute beauty and an absolute good, and of other things to which the term ‘many’ is applied there is an absolute; for they may be brought under a single idea, which is called the essence of each

Objective values are defined as values that are objectively true, which are beyond the biases of an individual or a group. There are correct standards for moral questions, and its objectivity does not depend on the authority of moral disagreements. If murdering an innocent person is objectively evil, then someone who supports this view is right and any opposing statement is objectively wrong. Moral objectivists essentially support this definition, and thus argue that moral disagreements do not undermine the validity of moral objectivity.

Moral disagreements are inevitable. Nobody denies this. However, now we will consider the argument of David Enoch, who represents the objectivist perspective. Enoch’s response to our main question would simply be “no.” There are objective values in ethics