If morality is objective, then why do some cultures practice female genital mutilation, cannibalism, infanticide, and other atrocities which we deem unacceptable?’
Someone tell me that consensus majority decides what is wrong and what is right. What in the past was right, now this can be wrong and vice versa, because the morality evolve over time. Was the “consensul social majority argument” a strong argument against moral argument?
“Objective morality” does not refer to a morality followed by everyone, or even by many. What we mean when we say “objective morality” is that there are such things as true moral good and true moral evil, and whether deeds are good or evil does not change based on our ideas or thoughts. What is evil is simply evil regardless of what we think about it, what is good is simply good regardless of what we think about it. Objective morality refers to a set, objective standard by which actions are judged.
For example, the fact that murder is always evil, no matter what, is an objective moral. It is still evil even if somebody doesn’t know it’s wrong, although their culpability may decrease. It is not evil because we say it’s evil; rather, it’s evil because it goes against God’s standard of goodness.
Murder would be morally evil even if everyone thought it was morally good.
It’s an argument against objective morality, but I wouldn’t call it a strong one. The fact that what we’ve considered moral has changed over time doesn’t prove whether or not there is an objective moral standard, it only proves that we don’t always see the standard the same way. This doesn’t mean the standard changes, but rather that we change, or our ability to see it changes.
Due to original sin, human beings cannot know the whole moral law easily, certainly, and without admizture of error, without the aid of divine revelation. Thus it is that evil practices can be regarded as good for even long periods of time.