Moral Epistemology

Paper Summary:

This paper examines the viewpoints of each of the philosophers -- G.E. Moore, W.D. Ross, John Rawls and Richard Mervyn Hare -- who, at some point in their various writings, ask: How do we know what is right and correct, and how do we act upon the answer to this question? The author points out that, to varying degrees, all of these philosophers write against, and yet ,in response to the popular theories of utilitarianism and the earlier postulate of Kantian moral absolutism as embodied in the categorical imperative, but no one agrees with John Stewart Mill or Emmanuel Kant. The paper relates that, in contrast to Ross and Moore, Rawls believes that it is possible to reach some categorical generalization about society as a whole when individual rights are in conflict.

Table of Contents
G.E. Moore
W.D. Ross
John Rawls
Richard Mervyn Hare

From the Paper:

"The philosopher Mervyn Hare was later to expand upon this idea that dealing with this values/factual distinction. He accepted both philosophers notions that these catagorizations were important in making moral determinations. However, unlike Ross, Hare advances a non-cognitively based ethical theory. Hare suggests that although there may not be pre-existing moral codes pre-existing or outside of the cognitive structures of the human mind, there is a need within a societal framework for moral assertions to prescribe codes in a universal fashion that makes them binding upon every human being."

More papers on Moral Epistemology:

• Persuasive Essay # 116474 : "Epistemology and Morality"
• Analytical Essay # 10944 : "Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous" by W. Jay Wood"
• Essay # 67620 : "Immanuel Kant"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: