Moral knowledge Essay

Moral knowledge, I believe, is possible. Nonetheless, not all experts agree on this point. Although some believe that people cannot be ethical, others think that they can be honest if they use reasoning and find valid explanations for their beliefs in situations where they behave in such ways (Johnson 24). Moral understanding is essentially possible because of collective or human rational thinking on what should be done morally. People see problems involving what is vicious or virtuous, right or wrong, as moral dilemmas. When people are confronted with ethical dilemmas in everyday life, they often behave unconsciously or impulsively, and sometimes they pose to reason what needs to be done. As such, this paper will evaluate whether moral knowledge is possible.

It can be argued that moral knowledge is possible since there is the existence of a uniquely moral sense, which enables people to perceive wrongness or rightness. Here, the assertion in question is reflective based on a type of feeling or sentiment, which is attended upon and secondary to observing states or actions of affairs with the ordinary senses. Much of the reasoning by people transpires through a position on an issue and how principles influence such matters. Ideally, knowledge is an inherently normative model. For instance, every individual ever tempted to be dishonest or cheat or requested for help has been confronted with a moral problem. In this case, they are perceived to have responded automatically without thinking, where the decision is considered a moral one (Kattsoff 1).

Moreover, moral knowledge is possible because for people to put aside all their beliefs about morality and moral beliefs will not be easy. This is because they will need to dispense with their most decisively held convictions regarding issues such as slavery, torture, as well as their beliefs regarding how friends should avoid behavior towards one another. People will also need to suppose that they do not have a clear idea concerning what a moral issue is, rather than a question of practicality or a question of etiquette. They shall as well need to cast aside all their suspicions regarding how morality is linked to self-interest and take on an agnostic standpoint on that issue. Therefore, moral knowledge is possible because individuals belong to an extremely judgmental species, and it is hard to refrain from blaming, praising, evaluating, and judging (Wilson 20).

People time and again feel the pressure of moral demands, but in any given case, they are free to ask whether such moral difficulties match up to something that would give a good reason for acting in response to it. As such, a real demand is justified if it draws from a system of moral claims that people can agree together to impose on the population. The case in moral thinking is that believing that various acts are wrong is linked to wanting to avoid them. Furthermore, mutual avoidance of such deeds appears as the fashion correlated with improved fitness. For this reason, at the least, moral knowledge in its most basic form is roughly associated with a selective advantage. It is believed that moral intuition is a direct responsiveness of moral truths whereby it is not something that people infer from any other belief. Additionally, moral intuition is distinct from introspection, memory, and perception. The moral reasons are those that can be given to justify one’s actions. They are regarded as public rights for the reason that they can be given to others. This shows that moral knowledge is possible because when one acts in public, they should be able to justify their actions not just for themselves but others since they too have to live with them (Mares 152).

An individual who has not taken a stand against or for things, a person without conviction, and an individual who is indifferent to how the globe is or might be, although such a person might have all sorts of belief, these individuals are perceived to lack moral views. Therefore, while such people might argue that certain things are wrong while others are right, their indifference belies their sincerity. For this reason, moral knowledge is possible because no matter what one believes, having an honest view is a subject of being engaged in how the world is or might be. An individual’s response to the world and recognizing the unique connection between one’s moral convictions goes hand in hand and having moral knowledge is not a matter of forming a belief.

Conversely, there is also the argument that it is not possible for people to have moral knowledge. This is because they lack certain moral values. Therefore, such people are unlikely to have adequate moral education for the reason that they are commonly deficient in various benefits. Moral understanding is also not possible because any set of proposed ethics has counter-examples. This implies that the concepts are not right for all cases. The search for moral knowledge is regarded as the exploration for exceptionless moral general truths, and this quest has failed as evidenced by the counter examples. A pertinent question arises when there is the realization that the moral knowledge is conflicted with the non-morals ones. The argument by the noncognitivists is that there is no moral knowledge for the reason that there is no objective truth (Lacewing 213).

Although some moral judgments are literary accurate, some of these facts are not identified. It is sometimes perceived that some individuals get correct facts right while it turns out to be totally wrong from others. Moral knowledge is not possible because no one ever knows an absolute moral judgment to be true. If there is approximately correct moral beliefs or some set of moral truths, independent of people’s opinions, attitudes, and feelings, then it is not possible to know they have been found. Although it is perceived that there can be justified true moral beliefs, this argument can be denied. This is because no known moral judgment has been proved for the reason that the correct statements that express them all the time portray the world falsely. Arriving at moral knowledge without the assistance of reason is impossible. This is because reason is one way of justifying the moral judgments (Lacewing 214).

The other reason as to why moral knowledge is perceived not to be possible is the fact that people behave differently. Therefore, each of them determines what is morally right for them. This brings about the difference in the belief as well as the behavior of people. In the appropriate range of cases, it can be taken to show that people fail to think responsibly. On this note, they have not managed to engage in moral knowledge. Therefore, moral knowledge is not possible because it requires each to reason in the same way and they need to do so by considering similar basic contemplations. In this context, the public would do the right thing basically for the reason that it is fair. However, this is not possible because the morality knowledge is complex in the community that people live. The complexity is that people time and again disagree on the subject of what is right.

Most of the individuals find that they fail to consistently live up to a moral standard even when there is an agreement for a consensus on moral values. An explanation for this is that the majority of the people set a high value on their personal interests. Therefore, although they may have moral commitments and ideals, the concern regarding their welfare is a powerful motivating factor. Another view is that an individual, who expresses moral knowledge, is thereby in a cognitive state of mind. This is where the person expresses a belief that portrays a moral state of affairs in a manner that could be inaccurate or accurate (Paul 1).

Conclusion

Despite, the counter-arguments, moral knowledge is believed to be possible because as a body of statements, the moral knowledge depicts what is not and what is to be done. Speaking of the morals of an individual refers to the acts they consider to be wrong or to be right, and it also relates to the way people live. For this reason, it is possible to establish what people do and make efforts to uncover a body of a true statement concerning the behavior of the sort under consideration (Kattsoff 3). The moral knowledge also enables people to extract moral doctrines. Moral reasoning is what gives people the knowledge that an action is wrong.



Works Cited

Johnson, Oliver A. Moral Knowledge. 1st ed., Dordrecht, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012,.

Kattsoff, Louis O. Making moral decisions: an existential analysis. Springer, 2012.

Lacewing, Michael. Philosophy For A2: Unit 3: Key Themes In Philosophy, 2008 AQA Syllabus. 1st ed., Routledge, 2013,.

Mares, Edwin. A Priori. 1st ed., London, Routledge, 2014,.

Paul, Ellen Frankel. Moral Knowledge. 1st ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002,.

Wilson, Catherine. Metaethics From A First Person Standpoint. 1st ed., Cambridge, Open Book Publishers, 2016,.