Moral Skepticism

Moral Skepticism

Shafer-Landau (2004) posits the concept of moral skepticism as a philosophical aspect exploring doubts in ethics by arguing that there is no objective ethic—the one with true independence from what anyone thinks of it. In supporting moral skepticism, Shafer-Landau uses the regress argument, which emphasizes the need to question the credentials of any existing honest belief. The supplied credentials provide evidence for each pursued argument, often resulting in continuous unending question-and-answer sessions. Therefore, moral skeptics posit that all moral justifications are subjective to an infinite regress—constantly undermining the justifiability of moral beliefs. Shafer-Landau also used the argument of certainty, emphasizing the impossibility of certainty for one’s moral beliefs (Shafer-Landau, 2004). In this argument, certainty is required in knowledge acquisition, but in ethics, certainty is unachievable; thus, moral knowledge cannot be acquired too. Get in touch with us at eminencepapers.com. We offer assignment help with high professionalism.

Other arguments used by Shafer-Landau include the perspectival argument, the argument of inadequate evidence, and the epistemic argument from disagreement. The perspectival argument assumes that a unique best perspective does not exist to make moral judgments; thus, justified beliefs are only achievable when one has the best perspective; therefore, none of our moral beliefs can be justified (Shafer-Landau, 2004). The argument for inadequate evidence revolves around the availability of evidence to support moral judgments. Unlike scientific studies, moral knowledge is insufficiently evidenced. The last argument is the epistemic argument from disagreement, which alludes that for any honest belief held, there is an individual more informed and rational enough to maintain their strong beliefs (Shafer-Landau, 2004). This diametrical opposition makes it impossible to justify one’s beliefs without justification oron or moral knowledge. Among the five arguments, the argument from certainty stood out the most. However, the argument can be refuted because if knowledge indeed requires certainty, we can know almost at all.

Reference

Shafer-Landau, R. (2004). Part Three Moral Objectivity Defended (Chapter Seven Moral Knowledge I: Four Skeptical Arguments). In Whatever happened to good and evil? (p. 66). essay, Oxford University Press.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Moral Skepticism

There are some good arguments against moral realism and favor moral skepticism. Shafer-Landau talks about a bunch of them. Given what you read so far, what is the best argument for moral skepticism? Can it be defeated?