Moral Skepticism - Essay Example

Moral skepticism holds that no person has any moral knowledge. It denies the objective platform of morality. What counts as a moral objective depends on the individual. Socrates claimed that he knew nothing. This implies that when someone is skeptical about everything, he or she should be skeptical about himself or herself. Some people chose to be moral because they evaluate and identify alternatives that appear to be the best according to the standards and rules. In most cases, a moral choice is based on an evaluation of available alternatives against some rules or standards of moral rightness and desirability (Shafer-Landau 41-44).

In addition, some people decide to be moral because they respond to moral choices and dilemmas in the manner they have witnessed or seen their friends, parents, and role responsibilities. Therefore, some of time some people chose what is moral because they have learned that doing that sort of thing is right and good. People are moral because our reinforcement comes from the instinct for self-preservation; briefly, self-interest is the cause of being moral. On the other hand, some people choose to be immoral due to the fact they desire to attain certain things with less effort. For instance, a person may decide to steal in order to get money because they know working is tedious - so stealing is an easier way of obtaining money than working.

Morality is about both obeying the set rules and evaluating the consequences. There are certain rules and regulations set out by a society that must be respected in order to live in harmony with other people, therefore people will tend to be moral by obeying the set standards in society. People maintain their moral status because they assess the result of their actions. For instance, a person is fond of telling lies and s/he will think of what happens when the truth will finally be realized (Kurtz 56). Therefore, people will choose to be moral in order to live harmoniously and avoid harming themselves.

For instance, Descartes was skeptical about everything he did in that his life was characterized by constant thinking and questioning. He doubted everything, and it is only through this he claimed to search for true knowledge. Descartes doubted his own existence in order to establish reflective thinking and questioning. Socially, Descartes relation with society was not that of an outgoing person. He spent most of his time improving his previous writings or coming up with new ideas. The Discourse on method is one of his notable publications among others. In his work, Structure of the Meditations, Descartes gives preeminence to meditation as one of the best ways to find what is true (Descartes 45). For somebody to suggest meditation, it means that he has meditated before. Meditation, according to him, is focused on ignoring every truth and belief of this world. In the end, he was able to establish true knowledge of what is right and wrong in society.

Every person develops his own original position on which he or she decided principles of justice behind the veil of ignorance (Sinnott-Armstrong 79-82). The basis of this strategy is that no one knows his/her place or social status in society nor does anyone know his/her fate in the distribution of social goods since all are under the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance limits people from knowing what justice entails. Putting in mind everybody is morally upright, it will be rational to consider all the social primary goods, which include opportunity and liberty, wealth and income, and the grounds of self-respect. With this in mind, these will form the basis of the policy whereby programs put in place will ensure that all these things are distributed equally; unless under special and justifiable circumstances, unequal distribution of these goods is to the benefit of the least favored. In addition, a person will be entitled to have an equal right to all the goods available. The office in charge will be transparent and fair to all under conditions to ensure equality of opportunity for all people. Some people should not be favored when distributing goods to the community.

 People should realize that theory that yields no relation to practice is empty, irrelevant, and complacent. Practice that frees itself from the emptiness of theory and refuses thought as such on the grounds of its own superiority will translate into activity for its own benefit as a person is in a position to question their acts (Bambrough 112). It would eventually lead to ethical people who abide by the set rules and know the distinction between right and wrong; for instance, attitudes and norms that in the course of reflecting on ethical questions incorporate an objective possibility of being qualified as true or real in practice.