Final answer:
The discussion concerns whether ethics can be objectively true as facts. Moral realism suggests the presence of objective moral facts, while moral skepticism denies this, proposing moral values are not factual. The debate touches upon the foundation of normative ethics and the justification of moral beliefs and practices.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question revolves around the concept of absolute ethics and whether moral rules can be viewed as objectively true, comparable to empirical facts like the boiling point of water. This falls within the realm of metaethics, which deals with the nature of ethical values and assumptions underlying moral judgments. The idea that "murder is wrong" as an objective fact implies that, independent of human opinion or belief, some actions are universally and inherently unethical. This stands in contrast to moral relativism, which suggests that moral judgments are culturally or individually dependent.
Moral realism supports the viewpoint of objective morality, suggesting that there are ethical truths that are factual about the world. This contrasts with moral skepticism, which denies the objective basis for moral values, emphasizing that moral values are not factual in nature and cannot be proved in the same way as scientific claims. Philosophers arguing against the strict separation between facts and values, such as Hilary Putnam, assert that value judgments can play a role in establishing what are considered to be empirical facts in science, drawing on a goal-oriented concept of telos to argue that values are based on the achievement of ends or purposes. Ethical naturalism extends this argument, claiming that good actions are those that contribute to human nature and flourishing, thus establishing an objective basis for moral values.
Conversely, the Euthyphro Dilemma presents a challenge to the divine command theory, suggesting that if moral goodness is defined by God's decrees, it becomes arbitrary, but if it's absolute, the concept of God is not essential for determining moral truth. Ultimately, the debate about the moral objectivity relates to foundational questions in normative ethics and how we understand and justify our moral beliefs and actions.