Philosophy Political Thought

Philosophical Arguments for the Existence of Moral Knowledge This paper summarises the philosophical arguments for the existence of moral knowledge, supported by the evidence for the external world contained in the article "Proof of the Objectivity of Morals" by Renford Bambrough. Bibliography cites one reference. The arguments for the existence of moral knowledge The idea behind the article "A Proof of the Objectivity of Morals" by Renford Bambrough has a thesis that we have moral knowledge.

This is a controversial assertion, and is one that is not accepted by many philosophers. The article start with consideration of two of Moores, arguments, that regarding the defence of common sense as well as the way in which the external world is proven.

There is evidence to support the propositions made, as in any attempt to disprove knowledge that another believes they have, such as the belief an individual has two hands, then it is the contradiction that must be seen as erroneous, as they must be making the statement as a result of false argument or mistaken reasoning. Therefore, if we have knowledge then there is a self evident proof of the existence of moral knowledge (Bambrough, 1969).

The interesting factor here is that there is a focus on the knowledge rather than the language which is used to express the knowledge. Bambrough argues that if a linguistic philosopher entered this discussion they would then argue that Moore used the term 'know;' in an unusual way (Bambrough, 1969).

If we look to the way the argument regarding moral knowledge is see it is argued that to accept the evidence for the external world and except it, but still deny moral knowledge is a position of self contradiction, yet this is a position adopted by many modern philosophers. Bambrough argument is that by default, if there is an external world, and we accept this proof, then there must be moral knowledge provable by parity of reasoning (Bambrough, 1969).

The example in the paper is that we know is a child is to undergo surgery that we should give an anaesthetic first otherwise the surgery will be painful, this means that we have a proposition that is true, and furthermore, Bambrough argues, one that could not be argued against with any reasoning that would appear to be credible (Bambrough, 1969). With this proof of the external world, by using the belief that the hands exist, Moore is also maintaining the belief in commonsense.

Thos that argue against moral knowledge do not accept the argument of commonsense when it comes to moral, only applying it to the physical world. Furthermore, there is no logical explanation give to depart from the use of commonsense when it comes to morals (Bambrough, 1969). The reverse for some philosophers had also be true, to reject the proof of the external world, but accept the moral argument, If we use the same arguments that they support each other, then this is in an equal self contradictory position (Bambrough, 1969).

Bambrough looks at the different arguments for and against Moral knowledge, such as the way that it is argued that there are many differences of opinion within the realm of morals, however, he sees this disagreement as not only irrelevant, but also the assumption of great differences as wrong. Indeed there are cultural differences, as the argument is seen as irrelevant regarding whether the knowledge exists or not this becomes immaterial (Bambrough, 1969).

It is argued that commitment to attitudes revealing what an individual feels is right or wrong demonstrate personal feelings rather then moral knowledge. This is not denied, as influences will impact on what is thought to be right or wrong. However, when we consider the role of belief, we cannot believe something unless we think it to be true in the same way that goodness and approval are linked (Bambrough, 1969).

Bambrough also considers the arguments of Hume, and here we need to accept that an individual that refuses to accept any proof cannot be made to, and they will not accept the premises other arguments are based on. This is an interesting point, but again, it is irrelevant as it does not add to the argument for or against moral belief.

Only accepts there are some people who will not accept the premises on what it is based, no matter what level of proof they are presented with (Bambrough, 1969) The argument that moral disputes cannot be resolved may be seen as indicating there is no moral knowledge, however, this also brings our attention back to Hume, as this would appear to assert that anything that is a factual or logical is by definition not a moral issue, yet we understand from commonsense to try and separate these is impossible as.