The Doctrine of Moral Skepticism
The principle of moral skepticism is a highly complex and convoluted affair which believes as according to the doctrine of Rachel that human beings have always been unfamiliar to the adherence of morality and ethics which they cannot learn or acquire primarily because of the fact that its benchmarks of judgment are highly variable in nature and is overwhelmingly dependent on the personal perceptions and perspectives of an individual that are in turn influenced by multitude forces in which cultural contexts and socialization agencies play the most prominent role.
The phenomenon of morality is symbiotically related to the cultural traditions and conventions that are practiced and exercised in a society. For example in an American society it is morally permissible to have beef as meal whereas it is forbidden for people living in India to do so.
Likewise it is allowed for a person living in Korea to eat the flesh of cats and dogs but similar principles of morality would not apply to an American citizen. Hence the presence of morality in either case is positively correlated to the cultural restrictions and limitations of the place that is being considered. Therefore it is under these contexts that the definitions of morally right and wrong acts are viewed. (Rachels, 2009)
Despite the fact that the understanding and subsequent implementation of morals are always accompanied with cultural values, the usual claim made by advocates of moral skepticism as people being completely unaware and unfamiliar to the concept of moral ethics can be challenged to a substantial extent.
Arguments to Moral Skepticism
One of the arguments that can be made in relation to the features that represent the ideology of moral skeptics is that if people are not morally and ethically aware, how was it possible that they were able to realize the social and economic injustice that they were inflicting upon their own people. Two examples in this context are highly justifiable, first can be linked to the medieval Arab tradition of burying their newly born daughters alive and second is the abolition of the inhumane custom of suttee practiced in Hindu communities where a widow was bound to burn herself on the pyres of her dead husband.
All these customs and traditions irrespective of the community in which they were practiced are no longer observed or exercised today because with the passage of time it was not the cultural change that took place in these societies, but the standards of morality altered. People of these societies realized that by adhering to such practices and customs they were only committing a blasphemy to the laws that outline humanitarian morality and divine ethical values. (Curtis, 1973)
Objections and Authenticity of Moral Skepticism
On the flip side, the objections that can be voiced in response to these arguments is many of these morality changes especially what proliferated in Indian societies was an outcome of colonial influence who were the first ones to highlight the brutality and atrocity of these traditions, despite stringent local feedback, hence the initiative of altering the benchmarks of morality did not germinate out of the society members itself, but overall the objections to these arguments are nothing more than a fleetingly existent models if the contemporary conditions of both these societies is considered.
From the nature of counter argument that has been presented it seems crystal clear that by marginalizing the doctrine of moral skepticism we can in fact contribute a greater and positive change as far as the criteria of moral justice and adherence towards ethical values is concerned, the phenomenon that there are always certain disbelief allied with the doctrine of morality intend to push people into greater pits of ignorance and harmfully indoctrinated. (Fink, 2007)