If we take moral scepticism seriously and find that we cannot find a satisfactory answer to the sceptic, we seem to be faced with the prospect that we cannot really justify morality. This is the view that there are no such things as right and wrong, and no such thing as morality in general (or that if there is then we cannot know it). Meta-ethically speaking, moral nihilism is anti-realist (morality does not exist; there are no moral truths), non-cognitivist (we cannot know of intelligibly think about morality) or both.
We have already done some work on moral philosophy and developed a sense that moral argument is often hard to grab hold of. What if this is because there isn’t anything really there? What if we’re just fooling ourselves into thinking that our own creations have somehow taken on a life of their own?
Note that one might be a sceptic as far as the morals of a particular society goes without denying the possibility of moral truth. However, to establish the truth of morality, what kinds of response might convince a sceptic? Could we ever ‘prove’ that there is some truth in the idea that we should behave morally?
Filed under: Ethics, Meta-ethics, Philosophy, Scepticism | 3 Comments
- 50,000 hits!
- Kill the Fat Man?
- Link: Kant
- Kant by Audiobook
- The Greatest Philosopher
- Religion, Science and Secular Reason
- Jackson on Euthanasia in the UK
- Is Tooley Playing with Words? – A Challenge for PY111 Students
- A 13 Year Old’s Right to Die?
- Assisted Suicide for non-terminal Cases?
- Warnock on Euthanasia
- RT @AcademiaObscura: Guess we'll never find out. https://t.co/PvDkGzbdc7 22 hours ago
- RT @MrHarryCole: Electoral Commission opens formal probe into Leave.EU’s Referendum spending return.. "reasonable grounds to suspect potent… 22 hours ago
- RT @fionajharvey: EU shuts British firms out of contract bids irishtimes.com/business/econo… via @IrishTimesBiz 1 day ago
- In 1812, GWF Hegel published his Science of Logic. Two centuries later, one of his disciples put on pinterest.com/pin/5010261458… 1 day ago
- RT @clhendricksbc: My post about writing an #opentextbook in #philosophy is now also posted on @DailyNousEditor. Join us if interested http… 1 day ago
- Nobel laureates condemn ‘unimaginative’ research funding models timeshighereducation.com/news/nobel-lau… 1 day ago
- RT @DrBartRienties: Want to join amazing PhD @LeverhulmeTrust community Open World Learning? 2 places left so apply now @OpenUniversity htt… 1 day ago
- RT @cogdog: "The economic basis of the Internet is surveillance." idlewords.com/talks/build_a_… 1 day ago
- RT @AcademicsSay: research funding explained https://t.co/ZKRBzARM6e 1 day ago
- Housing crisis: more than 200,000 homes in England lie empty theguardian.com/society/2017/a… 2 days ago
CHONG CHIN HENG on Kant and Deontology Maxx on Religion, Science and Secular… Brendan on Jim and The Indians Kuo-Jen Wang on Wittgenstein and External Worl… walter fields on Nietzsche on Kant
- Shelly Kagan on Death and Deprivation
- Elisabeth Schellekens Dammann on Disagreement About Taste
- Andy Clark on The Extended Mind
- Stephen Davies on Art and Evolution
- Eileen John on Art and Morality
- Chris Frith on The Point of Consciousness
- Keith Frankish on Conscious Thought
- Amia Srinivasan on What is a Woman?
- Kate Jeffery on Concepts and Representation
- Anthony Gottlieb on Pierre Bayle
- 136,966 hits since 12th Oct 2007