In Defense Of Practical Moral Skepticism

First of all, it's been noted that I have a burden to demonstrate that practical moral skepticism (PMS) is a sound stance. Interestingly enough, my defense it won't be anymore extensive than noting there doesn't seem to be any necessary reason to always act morally (the exact observation that PMS supports). For my opponent, all he needs to do is to demonstrate one dis-confirming instance of this claim, whereas my burden is to demonstrate a flaw in his demonstration. As for any particular argument in favor of this, I haven't come across one besides appealing to the fact there seems to be no necessary reason to always act moral. Be wary, as this is not an argument from ignorance as in evidence, I propose that it is sometimes rational to choose some choice over a moral one (interestingly, I want to contrast a moral choice with a self-interested choice, but you conflate the two - I will expound on this later). Remember that PMS focuses explicitly on reasons for actions. My opponent proposes a background introduction, and then a short summary of his "mutual benefit" ethical theory (MBE). I will first demonstrate several problems, and then go on to show how it's unsatisfactory as a response to PMS. ==================== Opponent's "Mutual Benefit" Ethical Theory -- Inherent Problems ==================== The inherent problems: 1. You seem to conflate the anthropological fact that ethics exist in human society (and are likely a product of multiple factors including social, evolutionary, etc. ) with the normative nature of ethics - a common problem I see with many ethicist is to trespass the boundaries between descriptive and normative ethics. You are correct in observing the pattern of all human societies to have a code of ethics, but it becomes sketchy when you claim that they all aim at a sense of being mutually benefit. Quite to contrary, it seems that many ethical codes result not in both parties being mutually benefited. Rather, it often includes one side of the party being the victim, one side of the party dishing out the punishment, and some object/entity towards whom the moral action is being done for the sake of. In the case of religion, doing a moral act would be justified because it's the code the gods gave us, and we do it because it is the moral thing to do (divine command theory). In fact, it's evident in most societies that ethics doesn't form in mutual benefits but arcane, abstract laws. You could retort be claiming that in the grand scheme, ethics help maintain social order and prevent tons of conflict. However, this seems to be the product of evolutionary instilled behaviors which you both note and contrast as something we need to escape, or "go beyond". If you do aim at an ethical theory focused on mutual benefits, appealing to anthropological roots falls on it's face in numerous ways. 2. The concept of "mutual benefits" is incredibly vague. Mutually beneficial in what sense? Beneficial to whom? You're going to need to explain what benefit means, how people are connected in your moral evaluation, and in what sense these two concepts are interlinked. ==================== Opponent's "Mutual Benefit" Ethical Theory -- Unsatisfactory Response to PMS ==================== While self-interested benefits may seem to be as a good reason for explaining why we should act morally, it doesn't explain why we should ALWAYS act morally. Do remember that PMS states that there is no necessary reason to ALWAYS act morally -- it accepts the distinct possibilities of there being reasons to act morally (in the case of it being in your self-interest). To note, you espouse psychological egoism as part of your theory. I reject this as a clear empirical doctrine - feel free to defend this. Nonetheless, even if psychological egoism were true it seems to be one hell of a claim for you to make that all acts of mutual benefits will result in self-interest. In other words, is it not conceivable for there to be an act which solely (or mainly) benefits me and yet satisfies my self-interest? For example, raping a woman would likely highly benefit me while being highly damaging to the woman.