Final answer:
The statement is false; moral objectivism does not necessarily imply that moral rules have no exceptions, rather it posits that there are universal moral truths, but this does not exclude context-specific considerations.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement, 'Moral objectivism necessarily implies that moral rules and principles have no exceptions' is false. Moral objectivism is the philosophical position that certain actions are morally right or wrong, independent of human opinion or belief.
This does not mean, however, that moral objectivism denies the possibility of exceptions to general moral rules. While moral realists argue that there are objective moral facts, this does not preclude the existence of complex situations where context or additional considerations might influence what is considered morally right.
Moral relativism, on the other hand, maintains that morality is always relative to a society or culture, suggesting that moral principles can differ and what is considered moral in one culture may not be in another.
Both of these perspectives contrast with each other, with moral objectivism upholding the existence of universal moral truths, while moral relativism suggests that moral norms are culturally or contextually based.
Philosophers who emphasize the concept of telos (goal or purpose) argue that values are based on the fulfillment of goals, and so it is possible to objectively assess whether actions are good or bad based on their alignment with these goals.