Moral Scepticism
Question 1
Moral [A1] skepticism is a meta-ethical theory, which claims that no one has any moral knowledge to justify whether a particular moral claim is true or false (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2002). Moral skeptics normally base their claims on observable facts, moral explanations, regress, skeptical hypotheses, and relations; all these aspects are also used to explain their philosophy. Moral skepticism often touches on pertinent issues; thus, it is relevant and correct. The followers of this philosophy often challenge the norms and elicit discussions that cause morality proponents to think widely and creatively to achieve mutual reasoning. Furthermore, everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs and claims as long as they are not injurious to others.
Question 2
Moral standards loosely coincide with the requirements of the set laws. Certain acts deemed as lawful may be immoral while others labelled unlawful may be moral; therefore, there is no perfect correlation. The mismatch between morality and etiquette is seen in certain occasions where being gracious or polite is not a requirement. As a result, the absence of good etiquette does not necessarily imply being immoral. However, moral standards are more disjoint with traditions that have not become moral despite being practiced for a long period. Several times in history, morality has called for a break from tradition as it was observed in the case of slavery and male chauvinism.
Question 3
A moral argument can fail under the following two conditions: first, its premises are wrong and secondly, the premises fail to validate the conclusion. An argument with either of these failings cannot have a true conclusion. Wrong premises will automatically lead to an unreliable argument while a discord between the conclusion and the premise cannot guarantee a correct claim.
Question 4
An argument is considered valid if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premise to be true and the conclusion to be false (Cline, 2018). The case can be used for an argument which claims that all fruits are edible. A banana is a fruit; therefore, it is edible. A sound argument, on the other hand, is an argument that is both valid and contains true premises (Cline, 2018). The argument above, for instance, is valid but unsound because not all fruits are edible. A sound argument would be all fruits come from plants. A banana is a fruit. Therefore, a banana comes from a plant. It is impossible for a sound argument to be invalid because all sound arguments must first be valid.
References
Cline, A. (2018, March 8). How to critique an argument. ThoughtCo. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/critiquing-arguments-250306
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2002). Moral skepticism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/
[A1]You should attach files without track changes