Is there an absolute Good? - Philosophy in Pubs (Headington)

This session explores the fundamental nature of ethics: Are "right" and "wrong" objective facts of the universe, or are they human inventions? When we say "stealing is wrong," are we describing a property of the world (like saying "the sky is blue"), or are we expressing a cultural preference?

For a deep dive into the academic background, we recommend reading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Moral Realism.

Part 1 — The Nature of Moral Truth

Is morality a discovery or an invention?

• The Math Comparison: If we say "all truths are relative," what do we do with 2 + 2 = 4? Is it possible for a moral truth to be as rigid as a mathematical one, or is morality inherently different?
• The Logic of Contradiction: If a moral proposition (e.g., "Slavery is acceptable") can be "true" for one culture and "false" for another, does the concept of "truth" lose all meaning? If a statement can be both true and false at once, is it actually neither?
• The Conscious Witness: If all conscious life were wiped from the universe, would "suffering is bad" still be a truth? Does morality require a perceiver to exist, or is it woven into the fabric of reality?
• Scientific Truths vs. Moral Truths: We use science to determine "truth" about the physical world. Can we use a similar method for morality? For instance, if we can "clearly and distinctly perceive" that our own pain is bad, is that enough evidence to conclude that pain is objectively bad for everyone?

Part 2 — Implications & The "Schmoral" System

What happens when moral theories meet the real world?

• The Reformer Paradox: If morality is purely relative to a culture, how can a "reformer" (like Mary Wollstonecraft or abolitionists) ever be right? In a relativist framework, an abolitionist in a slave-holding society isn't a hero; they are simply "wrong" according to the current cultural truth. Does this mean moral progress is an illusion? Is there an absolute distinction between a freedom fighter and terrorist?
• The Medicine Analogy: Think of morality as a functional tool - a "Schmoral system" designed to protect the vulnerable. Just as you cannot practice medicine effectively without "truth" about biology (that is a scientific consensus from which to agree what is effective) can you have a functional society without some objective "schmuth" about what causes harm?
• The Xenomorph Thought Experiment: Imagine a sci-fi scenario where an alien race (Xenomorphs) consumes a specific plant that helps their society thrive. They believe this is "good." However, it is later discovered that these plants are actually sentient and suffer immensely when eaten. Once the facts of suffering are revealed, does the "truth" of the Xenomorphs' morality change? Does this prove that morality is tied to objective facts about consciousness rather than just cultural opinion?
• Persuasion and Culture: How do you convince a "genocide culture" that they are wrong if there is no objective standard to point to? If we don't use the word "objective," what authority do we have to intervene in the practices of others (e.g., societies that are homophobic or practice FGM)? Can we address the conflict with being authoritarian and having a consistent moral position on human harm? Similarly can we morally justify the pursuit of profits in our culture that destroys the environment that supports other cultures?
• Functional Necessity: Do we actually need to prove morality is objective for it to work? Or can we treat it like a pragmatic "legal contract" that we all agree to for mutual survival?

If we discovered tomorrow that moral truths are entirely a delusion evolved for survival, would you continue to live by your current "moral code," or would you feel "free" to redefine your own right and wrong?

***

PiPa is part of a national movement to encourage people to think about some of the 'big ideas' in life. No expertise necessary, only the desire to do what Wittgenstein described as 'untangling the knots in the way we think about things'.

It is a collective activity, not a debating club.
Everyone attending, and there is often a wide range of people present, is encouraged to listen to and engage with the topic. We hope it is fun and provides plenty of food for thought.

The organisers are trying to find ways to collect money from attendees towards the costs of running the sessions, mostly the costs of using this Meetup site. One of the organisers has something on their phone that can take payments. Suggested amount? Just a few quid now and again for regulars. For anyone turning up for the first time, it's free.