My research discusses if the problems of intractable moral disagreement can best be explained by suggesting the existence of unknowable moral truths. Intractable moral disagreement is when two parties have all the relevant information about a moral situation and yet they disagree on the moral classification of the situation. For example, one may think it moral, whilst the other thinks it immoral. I believe this is a scenario that can plausibly happen in real life and so we need to deal with the effects of this. Some try to relativise morality and claim that neither party is completely wrong or completely right; or they’re both right individua…
My research discusses if the problems of intractable moral disagreement can best be explained by suggesting the existence of unknowable moral truths. Intractable moral disagreement is when two parties have all the relevant information about a moral situation and yet they disagree on the moral classification of the situation. For example, one may think it moral, whilst the other thinks it immoral. I believe this is a scenario that can plausibly happen in real life and so we need to deal with the effects of this. Some try to relativise morality and claim that neither party is completely wrong or completely right; or they’re both right individually. This relativism seems to be opposed to how we generally use moral language in discussions and the weight we give to moral decisions. As such I feel that we should aim to maintain the answer that in cases of intractable disagreement, one party is wrong and the other is correct in their judgements. I believe the best way to do this is to posit the existence of some unknowable moral truths that dictate whether our moral judgements are true or false in given scenarios.
