Common Sense Tells Us...

Bambrough's argument against moral skepticism is highlighted in The Ethical Life.  He argues five main points made by skeptics towards moral objectivity.  Overall, Bambrough relates that his argument is similar to that of G.E. Moore's.  Moore's argument consisted of proving the existence of an external world by pointing out he obvious.  He had two hands, these are both material objects.  Since there are at least 2 material objects; there is a materialistic, external world.


He argues against the skeptics' claim that "Moral disagreement is more widespread...and persistent than disagreement about matters of fact" (EL 220).  First, he explains that the even if moral disagreement is more persistent, has nothing to do with validating whether moral knowledge is possible or not.  Regardless, of how long or short a moral argument is; one side will be right while the other side is wrong.  Second, he discusses the objectivity factor.  Bambrough asserts that regardless of the amount of agreement or disagreement, this "...has no bearing on the question of objectivity..." (EL 220).

I agree that moral disagreement and moral objectivity are very different topics and aren't correlated with each other.  Essentially, moral disagreement does not weigh on whether the argued moral action is right or wrong.  It seems that moral disagreement arises over the rationalization of moral/immoral actions to the daily human life.  For example, common sense tells "us" that lying is wrong.  This common sense implies that lying is objectively wrong.  However, people rationalize this immoral action to try and make it something that it is not...moral.  Occasionally justified or necessary, depending on the situation.  Moral disagreement about lying may arise where one side sees this action as wrong while the opposing side may see it as right.  Such an argument, does not dis-bunk moral objectivity.  It merely talks about opposing viewpoints towards the application of lying.  Although, common sense seems to tell most people that lying is wrong; many have applied this action and rationalized it to fit their daily lives.  This rationalize doesn't show that this particular moral action isn't objectively wrong, it only illustrates that people apply morals differently to fit their environment.