Moral Skepticism is the belief that it is impossible to truly know if morals are absolute and that nobody can have any knowledge of absolute truth at all. Additionally, if evolutionary theory is true, then there are more good reasons to be moral skeptics. This is due to the notion that evolution will pressure all living things to adapt to their territory and environment so that they are fit for survival. In addition, this survival and fitness-enhancing pressures may not be truth-conductive because what a species needs to survive could contrast with another sect of that same species. Therefore, by this logic, the absoluteness and objectivity of moral beliefs cannot be known.
If this is the case, then moral skepticism leaves humanity in a constant …show more content…
Now, it would be wrong to say that no culture is going to agree and disagree with what is socially acceptable or moral. For example, in some countries, it’s considered ethical to look someone in the eye while talking to them as it gives the appearance that the individual is giving full attention to the person they are either talking or listening to. In contrast, it’s considered unethical in other cultures to look someone in the eye while talking to them because it comes off as invading their space and privacy. Be as it may, but these are very minor ethical differences when compared to bigger ethical issues. Except for a few small exceptions, there are some major cultural universals that share a consistent moral code with other cultures around the world. For example, murder, theft, cheating on your spouse, and lying are all agreed to be morally wrong. When you compare these moral universals with minor ethical preferences about looking each other in the eye, it’s very hard to see this as an existential crisis for absolute truth. If it where true that morality is relative, then what is the point of having laws? Who’s to say that racism and the holocaust was not justified? Who’s to say that the Aztecs did nothing wrong when they committed mass human sacrifice on their own citizens and children? If moral relativism were to be true, then any perceived evils and injustices we see in the world is justified and acceptable by the lack of an established moral giver or a presence of absolute truth. Also, just like moral skepticism and scientific materialism, this argument is self-refuting because it is explicitly and dogmatically stating something as if it were an absolute
If this is the case, then moral skepticism leaves humanity in a constant …show more content…
Now, it would be wrong to say that no culture is going to agree and disagree with what is socially acceptable or moral. For example, in some countries, it’s considered ethical to look someone in the eye while talking to them as it gives the appearance that the individual is giving full attention to the person they are either talking or listening to. In contrast, it’s considered unethical in other cultures to look someone in the eye while talking to them because it comes off as invading their space and privacy. Be as it may, but these are very minor ethical differences when compared to bigger ethical issues. Except for a few small exceptions, there are some major cultural universals that share a consistent moral code with other cultures around the world. For example, murder, theft, cheating on your spouse, and lying are all agreed to be morally wrong. When you compare these moral universals with minor ethical preferences about looking each other in the eye, it’s very hard to see this as an existential crisis for absolute truth. If it where true that morality is relative, then what is the point of having laws? Who’s to say that racism and the holocaust was not justified? Who’s to say that the Aztecs did nothing wrong when they committed mass human sacrifice on their own citizens and children? If moral relativism were to be true, then any perceived evils and injustices we see in the world is justified and acceptable by the lack of an established moral giver or a presence of absolute truth. Also, just like moral skepticism and scientific materialism, this argument is self-refuting because it is explicitly and dogmatically stating something as if it were an absolute