The Proof: Morality Dominating Society

Morality plays a role in all aspects of our society, especially science. Chapter 21 in Shafer-Landeau’s “The Ethical Life” is an excerpt from the book Moral Scepticism and Moral Knowledge, by Renford Bambrough. Bambrough begins with the example of a child given anesthetics before a painful surgery and explains how this scenario places a moral obligation to make sure that the child is not in unnecessary pain. Next, by establishing the existence of moral knowledge, Bambrough tries to refute popular arguments made against the reality of moral knowledge (Bambrough 217). He places focus on five objections.

The first objection Bambrough deals with is the idea that there is more disagreement in issues of morality than with issues of science. He explains how one of the reasons why science seems to be less controversial is because moral skeptics compare controversial moral disagreements with less controversial science practices.

The second criticism Bambrough deals with is the idea that an individual’s morals come ultimately from his/her upbringing in their society. Bambrough deals with this criticism by explaining that even though someone from one culture may have different moral beliefs of issues, these ultimately stem back to the issue that culture’s also have differing factual beliefs. He explains how a person living in the northern hemisphere may believe that it is always cold during Christmas, while someone living in the southern hemisphere might believe Christmas time is never cold (221). Futhermore, Bambrough argues that we have to see perspective of certain morals for societies. He explains how in Eskimo society, stealing from someone’s house can be prohibited due to that culture’s perspective (222).

The third criticism to moral knowledge is synonymous to an expressivist’s argument. An expressivist would argue that calling something “right or wrong” is simply just a venting of your emotions. Bambrough tries to explain how you cannot equate the correctness of something with your approval of something.

The fourth criticism is that a moral argument is limited to its range of reasoning. He argues against this criticism by stating that in the end, some people are too stubborn to see reason and obvious truths. For example, you can use flawless science and reasoning to verify that the earth is round, but the the Flat Earth Society will never accept your evidence (224). Bambrough’s example shows how moral arguments can come to a halt and prove difficult to explain to people when they are simply not willing to be convinced.

Finally, the fifth criticism to moral knowledge is that, unlike scientific arguments, moral disputes do not contain recognized methods to settle their arguments. Bambrough shows that this criticism is false by explaining some of the methods that you can go about in moral arguments through questions.

I feel like if I had to pick a criticism that I agreed closest with it would be the first objection because I simply don’t agree with Bambrough in that “it is certainly untrue” (220) that society has more moral disagreements than scientific disagreements. In fact, if we look at many of the disagreements in science today, they are due to the ethical boundaries being pushed by science. The biggest proponent against stem cell research is the question of ethics. Scientists know that stem cells hold the possibility of curing neurological diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease, but the major hurdle is the funding is the ethical debate of the stem cell embryos.  I think there are fewer disagreements in science today about the facts and more disagreements on the ethics behind many potential experiments. I am not saying that ethics is holding the progress of science back by any means! In fact, I see morality serving as a "checks and balance" type of role to science. I am simply trying to show that moral disagreements are dominant in our society so much so that they also pertain to society's progress of science.