For any given moral situation various factors exist that must be taken into account.

So, before
we can judge whether an act is right or wrong we need to evaluate several things: the different
personalities of the people involved their emotions, intentions, intuitions as well as the consequences
of the act. These factors can describe as relative to the morality of an action. For example, a worried
person may expect us to always tell the truth no matter what, but in a situation where someone is
extremely sensitive it might be justified to tell a lie to spare their feelings.

Even great moral philosophers disagree about the nature of morality. According to Immanuel
Kant’s influential duty-based theory of ethics maintains that truth-telling is universally binding on all
rational beings. Thus, if a serial killer demands to know where you’re hiding your sibling, Kant’s
absolute system would aver that you tell the truth because it is not possible to consistently universalize
the act of telling any kind of lie. On the other hand, according to John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism would
insist that you lie to the serial killer because this would most likely maximize the greatest amount of
happiness or pleasure by minimizing the unhappiness or pain for you and your sibling.

In a perfect condition world of moral ideals, perhaps morality could be objective and
universally binding on all people. However, we live in a world of moral impermanent and flexibility.
And it is because of this that morality is not nor could ever be objective

Is moral judgement objective? This question initially seems simple, as there appear to be many
things that most people would automatically believe to be naturaly morally wrong, in all times and
place, such as murder, lying, and theft. But after reflection, many would agree there are also cases
where these things may be acceptable. For example, stealing medicine to save the life of a critically ill
child, or lying to someone over the whereabouts of your friend whom they express an intention to kill.
However, people would not necessarily give the same reasons why these are exceptions to the rule.
Some may argue there is greater moral responsibility to a friend than to a stranger, so, in this
circumstance, lying in their defence is acceptable; but others may argue a hierarchy of moral actions:
so although lying, or stealing, is ethically wrong, not acting to prevent a murder, or to save the life of
a child, is a far greater wrong. Others still may stress the importance of social values and behavior in
ethical situations.

In my own perspective, despite a widespread belief there are things that are inherently morally
correct apart from in exceptional circumstances, there is lack of consensus on what these exemptions
are, or when and why they are acceptable. This is what makes debate over whether there is truly an
objective morality uncertain, and makes moral philosophy the challenging concern on these matter.

One reason for denying that morality is objective is the claim that science will provide an very
thorough description of reality which leaves no room for objective moral facts, and so morality must
be either subjective or a matter of agreement. However, it could be argued that mathematics faces
the same problem here as morality. Mathematical objects such as numbers do not appear in the list of
items in the natural world that science can detect. They cannot be observed as part of the physical
universe, even though they are a prerequisite for the success of science. But we should notice that this
does not prevent us from regarding mathematical truths as objective.

There is no accepted procedure that enables us to settle moral debate, which often seems no end.
There is no experiment, for example, which can determine whether abortion is morally acceptable. In
spite of what has just been said, the controversial nature of morality is itself a reason to think that
there are objective truths at stake. We do not seriously debate matters of taste like whether coffee or
tea is the better drink, because we do not believe there is an objective answer.

In many cultures it is taught that God or the gods determine moral values, yet these are often
the most prescriptive examples of enforced cultural values and habits. People who hold to this
perspective often claim that theirs is the only true objective morality, but unfortunately it seems that
when one evokes God to rationalise one’s morality, anything, including the most savage actions, can
there be real but posibly not true or justified.

On the other hand, morality in theory is very simple: it is to treat everyone the same and give
everyone the same rights, be they men, women, homosexuals, people of different faith, or with a
different skin colour.