Moral Skepticism and Moral Knowledge

Moral Skepticism and Knowledge

Moral Skepticism and Moral Knowledge

Morality is a much debated philosophical idea, wherein the arguments range from ethical egoism being the perfect sample of moral ethics to altruism being the perfect -- and otherwise opposite -- viewpoint. Both ideas have strong followings, and ethical egoism along is broadened to even more branches within philosophical studies. There is still much reconciliation to be done between the various problems of philosophical thought and ethical egoism or lack thereof.

Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism is a particular form of egoism where one who is moral "ought" to do what is in one's self-interest. The morality behind egoism generally points toward the idea of self-interest; that a moral being's moral path is by focusing on one's self. This type of egoism should not be mistaken for psychological egoism, however. Psychological egoism makes a claim that beings act only in their self-interest. Ethical egoism plainly states a choice. In psychological egoism, a person's morality is no longer in question; it doesn't matter if one is moral or not, one acts solely for one's self-interest regardless. The ethical egoist, on the other hand, believes that one's morality is at play; the moral person acts in self-interest while the immoral one does not.

Many proponents of ethical egoism -- among them Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, David L. Norton, and Max Stirner -- have argued that it would be best to act upon one's own wants and needs; they claim that this type of pursuit towards the self is the most effective method to live life at an optimal level. In fact, why attempt to pursue the wants and needs of another when there is the chance of falling short on effectiveness? It is much easier to act upon what one wants and needs than it is to figure out what the other person wants and needs. A second argument regarding the favoring of ethical egoism falls upon the ineffectiveness of altruism. To the egoists, altruism denies the chance of pursuit of happiness, that the philosophy itself calls upon the viewpoint that life is merely a sacrifice. Rand writes that "the basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake…that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue or value" (Rand).

That is not to say that ethical egoism has no antagonists. Thomas Jefferson writes that "self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality" (Jefferson). Many altruistic philosophers believe that ethical egoism is the entire point of immorality; ethical egoism serves as a problem when it comes to the conflict of interest. There is no moral basis when arbitration becomes skewed to one's bias and self-interest. Furthermore, how does one reconcile the paradox wherein an individual acts in his own self-interest, preventing another to do the same? Which man becomes morally correct?

2. Is-Ought and Demarcation

In the attempt to reconcile ethical egoism with morality, the is-ought and demarcation problems arise. The is-ought problem, as articulated by David Hume, states the problem or whether there is truth and fact in moral statements. How does the statement go from "is" to "ought" and vice versa? Hume says the two words are impossible to merge (Hume). Where egoism is concerned, the "is" philosophical statement follows a more rigid, factual pace; thus ethical egoism does not follow the "is" statement. Ethical egoism can still harmonize with the idea of "ought." Demarcation is another problem. How does one define the boundaries drawn between science and religion, science and philosophy, science and non-science? Like the is-ought problem, there is the problem of where one ponders over the existence of moral facts. Here, psychological egoism becomes a part of the boundaries in philosophy; in this type of thinking, it is agreed that a person will always act in self-interest. Here a scientific principle is being methodically used in order to come up with the answer.

3. Love and Altruism

Lastly, we come to the matter of love, or eros. The problem with the eros-agape model is that both terms are used to refer to two different spectrums of love. For the most part, philosophy refers to "eros" as "love," and connotes one's sexual desires and longing for a person or object. Agape refers to a fraternal or filial love, not desirous or sexual in nature (Blackburn). This becomes ingrained within the discussion of morality because agape can be easily linked to altruism (though not necessarily exclusive to altruistic thought), whereas eros is more closely related to the nature of ethical egoism. After all, the nature of self-interest can be synonymous to one's desire; whereas the nature of solidarity and brotherly love shows the face of altruism.