Moral Skepticism
Moral Skepticism
Moral skepticism denies the idea of moral truth and argues that agents have no reason to be moral. Although moral skepticism has no traditional "syllogism", it is usually supported by a variety of arguments that each either deny morality's existence, prove morality is arbitrary, or show that agents have no reason to act moral.
Moral skepticism is usually the most strategic against frameworks that lack robustly justified syllogisms, since the strongest way to respond to skepticism is to assert the validity of their own framework as a reason why agents ought to act moral. Specifically, frameworks that are impact justified are particularly weak against skepticism.
If a debater is unable to generate moral obligations, this would typically trigger permissibility – since no framework is able to justify any particular action as right or wrong. Therefore, in addition to winning a substantive justification for skepticism, the debater must be winning that skepticism either affirms or negates, depending on which side they are running the argument.
Below is a non-exhaustive list of some arguments used to justify moral skepticism.
Typical Arguments
Infinite regress argues that one can infinitely question why we ought to be moral. For instance, a utilitarianism would argue we ought to strive towards pleasure. Why? Because pleasure is desirable. Why is pleasure desirable? Because biologically, dopamine is released into our system upon experiencing pleasurable experiences. Why should we listen to our body's natural properties? At that point, the utilitarian framework does not seem to have a clear answer, and as a result, would fail to derive a reason why following the standard is good.
Moral divergence proves that we have been arguing over the correct moral theory for thousands of years. If anything, debate over which moral theory is correct has been getting more broad, and we are not moving towards any unified consensus of what is moral. Therefore, it seems unlikely that any objective truth exists.
The rule-following paradox suggests that any moral rule is inherently arbitrary and fallible. All rules can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and nothing ensures equitable application of the rule. For instance, when one approaches a red light, nothing about the light inherently means one must stop – it is simply a learned rule. Similarly, moral rules can be interpreted in a variety of ways that would ensure a uniform application would be impossible.
Common Objections
Debaters common argue that skepticism is morally repugnant since it could justify any action, including atrocities. Although this argument could be persuasive in front of certain judges, from a logical standpoint, it does not seem to make much sense, since calling a concept "morally repugnant" presupposes that morality exists in the first place. Since skepticism denies morality existing, one could not leverage morality as a reason why one should reject the framework.
Readings
Moral Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)