Final answer:
The claim that Objectivists argue against the need for objective moral principles is false. Moral realists assert objective moral truths, while moral skeptics and moral relativists deny such objectivity in morality, emphasizing its subjective or relative nature.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that Objectivist e.g. Balfour, argue that we do not need objective moral principles is false. Moral realists, and not Objectivists, are typically the proponents who argue that there are no objective moral principles. They advocate for a more objective concept of morality, positing that certain moral facts about the world are objectively true. This contrasts with moral skeptics who question an objective basis for morality, emphasizing that moral values are not factual and are distinct from logical or scientific reasoning.
Philosophical positions like moral realism and moral skepticism demonstrate the tension between believing in an objective morality versus a relative or subjective one. As per the concept of telos, or purpose, certain philosophers argue that values are based on the fulfillment of a goal, and hence can be objectively assessed. Conversely, moral relativism denies the existence of a universal justification for moral beliefs, claiming that all morality is relative to the individual or community.