Proof of the Objectivity of Morals (1969)

¶ … Proof of the Objectivity of Morals" (1969) Barmbrough is trying to prove that common sense defeats philosophical explanations in many cases. He says that information that can be proven by the five senses or simply because it is true, is more important than the language used to make the point. This paper argues that a commonsense view that could be understood by all is more important than "double talk" that is philosophical but cannot be understood by everyone.

Moore himself speaks largely in terms of knowledge and belief and truth and falsehood rather than of the language in which we make our common sense claims"(Bambrough 37). In his argument he says that words should not be subjective. Communication should be tangible and concrete. He contrasts factual information with valuable information. He argues that people do have moral information that goes beyond the factual. This is information that could and should be shared and gives the example of the child who must undergo surgery. We know that although we can't feel the child's pain, the child would undoubtedly hurt if the surgeon should forego the medication. Although the philosopher could attempt to argue that a child does not need medication, common sense dictates otherwise. Words can be used to spin the argument to make it appear that this child does not need medication to mitigate the pain. However, Bambrough argues that no matter how the point can and will be argued the child who will suffer needs medication. That's common sense.

When Moore proves that there is an external world, he is defending a commonsense believe. When I prove that we have moral knowledge I am defending a commonsense belief" (Bambrough 39). Commonsense, he argues is information that people instinctively know is right or wrong. The view is somewhat based on morals or even judgement.

He argues that philosophers are in consistent. On one hand they say that we can discuss a knowledge of what is called the "external world" on the other hand philosophers say that we should no speak or write in a certain way. An argument against commonsense states that facts can be proven. Common senses are inconsistent. It waivers based on upbringing and even the time period. "Moral disagreement is more widespread, more radical and more persistent than disagreement about matters of fact" (Bambrough 41).

Bambrough argues that there is a general agreement on most issues. Issues like abortion, nuclear weapons, capital punishment, and birth control, are hot issues, which could be debated. However, most people would say that a child in pain should be given medication. Although arguments dealing with moral issues can be argued in depth, he says that there can be some agreement or cooperation on morally charged issues.

He also defends the point that morals can be inconsistent depending on a person's environment. There are many different beliefs, just as there are Eskimos, Hottentots, Polynesians and American Indians, for example (Bambrough 42). People have different outlooks on life. But he says that in most cases, in the case of moral issues, there is no need for hard-fast rules. For example, some people practice monogamy. Other people are in favor of polygamy. In the areas where polygamy is acceptable, there are rules that allow it. In areas where monogamy is acceptable there are laws to allow that way of life. People in the same area usually have the same morals. The rules change according to the people and their social context. People who live in North America know that it is cold during Christmas. People who live in the Southern Hemisphere cannot image that it is cold on Christmas.

In some societies, he says, it is against the law to steal. In other societies, there is no such thing as theft. Everything belongs to everyone. Just as moral rules can change from culture to culture, so must the hard rule must change. There is never a such thing as never.

He also disproves the argument that ethics plays no part in philosophy. "The place of reason in ethics is exactly what it is in other inquiries, to enable us to find out the relevant facts and to make our judgements mutually consistent to expose factual errors and detect logical inconsistencies"(Bambrough 46)