Quick questions on Is there moral knowledge explained: H2 Knowledge and Inquiry

Suppose cognitivism is right and moral claims can be true. How might we be justified in them? Three routes are proposed. Rational intuition: some hold we directly grasp certain self-evident moral principles, much as we grasp simple logical truths; critics object that intuitions vary across cultures and that the faculty is mysterious.

The leading argument against moral knowledge is the argument from persistent disagreement. Moral disputes seem deep and intractable in a way factual disputes are not: societies and individuals disagree profoundly about contested issues with no agreed method of resolution. Some conclude that this is best explained by there being no objective moral truth to know, only differing attitudes. This is a powerful challenge precisely because the disagreement looks so durable.

The argument can be resisted. Much moral disagreement turns out to rest on disagreement about non-moral facts (the consequences of a policy, the nature of an entity) or on framing, rather than on ultimate values, so it is less purely moral than it appears. There is also wide cross-cultural convergence on core norms (against gratuitous cruelty, betrayal, and unfairness), which an error-theory of all moral judgement struggles to explain. And disagreement exists in domains we still count as knowledge, including frontier science and history, so disagreement alone does not entail the absence of truth.

Explain why the possibility of moral knowledge depends on whether moral judgements are truth-apt. [6 marks]

Explain what reflective equilibrium is as a route to moral justification. [8 marks]

Give two replies to the argument from moral disagreement. [6 marks]