.
.
The short answer to the question, as asked, is: Yes; but, that's not a very useful answer since every question of the form: Does 'X' exist?, requires a 'yes' as an answer in order to interpret the question in a meaningful way. If 'X' did not exist, or if I answered: No, there would be nothing to talk about.
Since I don't think that the question was intended to discuss metaphysical or ontological implications, I will assume that it is a request for some explanation of the term(s) 'absolute true morals'. That's complicated enough, and it still requires some further assumptions to deal with it in a reasonably brief manner.
Since it is a conjunction of three ideas, each of which can be discussed separately at great length, I will assume that the idea of 'morals' is the 'best understood' of the three because the other two ideas, used as adjectives, are modifications of that idea. A further simplification by dropping the idea 'true' would also be helpful, since a presentation of 'false' morals would be counterproductive, and since the idea 'true' is redundant (i.e., it implies an 'absolute' entity 'Truth' that is independent of our understanding since it is possible to have 'true' and 'false' understandings of what is actually True).
That brings us to the idea of an 'absolute', which is the least understood of the three ideas in the original conjunction. Even Einstein was confused about the concept, and he added significantly to its mis-understanding and mis-use. The problem with the idea, as it is frequently used, is the connotation that it is 'not relative'. There are many ways to show that that connotation is contradictory in any frame of reference. Here, I will try to do so in terms of definitions and knowledge.
In my dictionary, (Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary - Unabridged, Second edition), 'Absolute', with a capital 'A', is defined as:
1. the independent, unrestricted, and perfect Being; God.
2. that which is perfect or unrestricted; a condition of perfection.
In that same dictionary, many definitions are given for 'absolute', with a small 'a', that are consistent with the second definition given above, except the sixth one: 'not relative; as absolute space'. For that I blame Einstein.
If space was not relative, how would we know about it? Einstein got that part right; but, If there was no 'absolute' space, how could 'space' be related to everything Einstein said?
Knowledge is a relationship of the known to a knower: i.e., it is relative, and relevant, to a knower. If it could not be known the idea could not be presented. If it is presented, something is known about it. Since 'absolute' implies 'perfection' our knowledge of it is limited to particular relationships, i.e., a less than perfect understanding of it. The critical difference between 'absolute' and 'relative' is that the absolute can be known by everyone, and can be related to everything else, even though it can be independent and unknown. Absolutes must also be relative, i.e., be knowable, be capable of being related to a knower. If they could not be relative, they could not be known, and the word 'absolute' should be purged form our vocabulary since we could not know what we're talking about by its use.
We depend on Truth, but Truth does not depend on us. We depend on others telling us the truth, but we verify it independently for ourselves by comparing it to our best understanding of Truth. We even try to verify our own beliefs to correct self-deceptions, or false justifications that nag our conscience and consciousness because they deviate from our sense of the absolute, our sense of perfection, our sense of what's 'true' and what's 'right'.
With the complications of the two subsidiary ideas (hopefully) removed, I will now address the main idea of 'morals'. The idea of 'morals', in contrast to the idea of 'ethics', already has an absolute quality associated with it as being derived from an Absolute (as defined above). The idea of Truth as an absolute contains the idea of Morals as that aspect of Truth that is intended to guide moral human behavior. Just as 'truth' is related to 'Truth', 'morals' are related to 'Morals'. Both Truth and Morals can be expressed as the Laws that govern human behavior in relation to the physical environment and other humans, respectively. There are two fundamental Laws that are so closely inter-related that they the can be viewed in a single absolute context as emanating from The Absolute, or God.
The First of these is: Love God by obeying God's Laws.
You don't have to. You have a choice. Your choice has consequences.
Consider: God's Law is the expression of God's Will. The Creation expresses God's Will as the Laws of Nature. Try to defy them and suffer the consequences. Try to work with them and enjoy the benefits, some of which have yet to be imagined. Defy the 'law of gravity' by jumping off a cliff and pay the consequence, or work with the 'laws of physics' and learn to levitate, hover, or fly.
The Second Law is similar: Love others as you love yourself.
You don't have to. You have a choice. Your choice has consequences.
It is this Second Law that forms the basis of human morality as it is usually understod. Following it requires no conscious acknowledgement of the First Law since following either is equivalent, implicitly, of following both (i.e., the Second Law is included in the First). Defying this Law, unlike defying the First Law, produces consequences that are not as immediate. Defying it causes you, and all humanity, to suffer the consequences, rather than to enjoy the benefits of following it. Putting oneself above all else is the root of all evil.
Christ said something like that.
I mention that here so that, at the very least, no Christian can argue against the formulation of Moral Law that I have presented. Those who accept Him as God (i.e., Christians) should recognize this formulation as a paraphrase of the summary of the 'Greatest Laws' that Christ Himself gave. Non-Christians, who are also non-atheists, should also have no difficulty in understanding, or accepting this formulation, since they can accept Christ as Prophet, or as a Philosopher: notice that it does not specify any particular concept of God, or religion - even those that only acknowledge a non-personal God such as Nature. Even atheists should have a difficult time trying to deny the existence of Forces of Nature that are beyond human control, but that do influence human destiny and behavior - whether they are considered from a moral perspective or not.
In summary: Attempts to deny, or defy, the Laws of Nature are either ineffective, or produce undesirable results, while accepting and following those Laws opens up the possibility of controlling the Forces involved to satisfy our own purposes. Thus one OUGHT to follow them. Not to do so is unreasonable: i.e., contrary to the intended purpose, or intended reason, or expected outcome, for doing anything.
That is the function of Consciousness and Reason. And that is one half the story of Conscience.
Up to this point, a 'mechanism' is described that can produce a sense of 'ought', but there is no guidance other than 'our own purposes' on how that mechanism should be directed, especially with respect to human relations. That's where the Second Law comes into play.
Christ's formulation of that Law is an extension, and a refinement, of the age-old, and ubiquitous, 'Golden Rule', which could easily be derived intuitively. The change, from 'Do unto others' to 'Love others', may seem small, but it is actually a momentous one; I would even say a profound one. The concept of 'Love', though accessible to the least among us, introduces such a high levels of consciousness that, in Christian theology, only Christ, as God, could achieve them to a point of Loving His enemies. Even those who are acknowledged by Christians as the most moral among us, the saints, fall short of meeting the standards He set as goals. To my knowledge, Christ was the first to formulate the 'Golden Rule' in terms of Love, and the essential difference between the two formulations is the change in focus it engenders.
For example:
If I like the house cold, but my family likes it warm, then, Keeping it cold is consistent with the 'Do unto others' formulation (focus on self), but it is not consistent with the 'Love others' formulation (focus on others).
The inclusion of the phrase 'as yourself' is also interesting and important. It retains the necessity of knowledge for satisfying one's own will (self-love, love of activities and things) as the standard by which we can understand the satisfaction of another's will as an expression of our love for them, since that's the way we learn the meaning of love. As we are, or were, loved, so can we love.
That's the other half of Conscience.
Conscience, as the union of these two halves, suggests the attributes that enable it to act as the arbiter of the Absolute Laws of Morality (Laws 1 and 2) in any relative context. The conscience of any individual is independent of any religion, society, culture, or lack thereof. Though it usually must function in one or more of those contexts (or others that might be enumerated), it can also function in isolation from such contexts.
Thus, the individual always has available sufficient knowledge of the First Law [i.e., the Will of God, as expressed through the Laws of Nature within his/her own physical being (and understood through instinct, intuition, or some other metaphor)], as well as knowledge of the Second Law [i.e., Love as the most fundamental yearning, as the satisfaction of will], to be able to distinguish right from wrong.
To state that in another way: The Moral Absolutes are accessible to our understanding because they are part of our being. We are all responsible for how we apply them relative to any context, and we are responsible for our relative understanding of those Moral Absolutes.
To put it most simply: Let your conscience be your guide.
The answer given above was presented in whole, and in part, to other sites for discussion.
It received the following responses:
E-mail Dialogue - Ask a Philosopher
.