MORAL KNOWLEDGE AND ITS PERTINENCE TO LIFE 1

Moral Knowledge and Its Pertinence to Life

Dustin K. DEwart

Salt Lake Community College

moral knowledge and its pertinence to life 2

Moral Knowledge and Its Pertinence to Life

[The body of your paper uses a half-inch first line indent and is double-spaced. APA style

provides for up to five heading levels, shown in the paragraphs that follow. Note that the word

Introduction should not be used as an initial heading, as its assumed that your paper begins with

an introduction.]

If we first assume that we can have unfaltering knowledge, one might begin to question

whether or not we can have that same level of certainty in regards to what we can really know

about morals. To explore this train, we also must assume that a moral can be a belief, and can be

considered true or false as a statement. If Leo Tolstoy is to be considered as the defining

authority on this, it just leads us to, yet one more in a long list of, logical circles and a leap of

faith.

If we lean toward the assumption that morals are derived from our culture and morals are

based on feelings, then we cant have anything such as factual moral knowledge because nothing

could be universally true in relation to morals, as moral truth would be geographically restricted

to the social group that created it. This leads to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a

universal moral truth, and because of that, a moral fact cannot exist which means that moral

knowledge cant exist either.

To consider the idea of morals being based on feelings and sentiment ends in the

conclusion that we still cant have any moral knowledge for certain. If moral knowledge were to

exist, there would be a fact or a statement in regards to it. Morals are motivating in and of

themselves though where facts are not. Facts provide no feeling and no passion where morals

seem to create passion, conviction, and drive. Considering these two things are opposite in
moral knowledge and its pertinence to life 3

nature, then it cannot be possible to have moral knowledge. Morals add a certain amount of

passion to life, a certain amount of emotion, that is entirely unavoidable. The feeling is there

regardless, even if you resist the urge to act upon it. Through this I consider a personal belief. I

believe that murder is wrong, but I understand that I could be convinced, according to the

circumstances, that it may have been justifiable. If I consider the fact that its possible to change

my moral consideration of murder in this way, it seems awfully difficult to believe moral

knowledge is possible.

Many people believe that moral facts exist as a part of reality, either naturally occurring,

perhaps given to us by a higher power, or maybe somewhere in between the two like

mathematics. In order to believe that morals facts and moral truth is given to us by god, you have

to believe that god exists in the first place, which is not a topic to be discussed here. After that,

you still have to come to terms with how youre going to interpret gods revelation without

already having some prior moral knowledge, or at least a concept of good and bad. If it were

naturally occurring somewhere in reality, there would be some type of scientific evidence, which

there is not. Under the consideration of it being something in line with reality but not existing

within, such as the case of mathematics, then it would lead to the conclusion that when all facts

are agreed upon, in a moral disagreement, besides the underlying moral principle behind it, both

parties would come to agreement over the moral principle, yet history, society, and modern life

show us that this is not the case.

Leo Tolstoy believes that good and evil are given to us by god, but at the same time, he

describes morals to be innate. In War and Peace (1869) he describes altruism as being part of

human nature and to live life against that is to seek refuge from the fear and discomfort of living

to selflessly improve the lives of others (p. 304-305). He goes as far as to say that it is even
moral knowledge and its pertinence to life 4

acceptable, and morally good, to sacrifice of yourself for the good of others (p 214-216). At one

point he describes a human desire to suffer for the good of many (p. 514). He considers even

justifiable wrong doing to have a motive born of bad moral judgment within. In the epilogue he

concludes that if we have moral knowledge, there would be nothing worth living for anymore.

He makes it sound as though moral conflict is what gives us the passion to live a life worth more

than a concept as simple as surviving and perpetuating the existence of the human race. (Tolstoy,

1869)

The problems with consideration through his method of thinking start with assuming the

that god can give the definition of good and evil. If you can get as far as that, then you have the

basis for altruism. Without knowing good and evil, there would be no reason for anyone to be

altruistic, as they wouldnt comprehend the concept behind doing good for the wellbeing of

another, or even any type of evil that might be done to them. If we step behind that we look at a

belief that altruism is innate, which is highly arguable within itself. When taken into

consideration the self-satisfaction of acting according to altruistic guidelines, it almost does seem

as though it is the frictional passion that leads to a fulfilling and satisfying life, and leads one to

believe that perhaps Tolstoy might be right. If altruism is a natural aspect behind human nature,

and possibly even one of the driving forces of it, its almost comforting to come to the conclusion

that, although we cant have any universal moral knowledge based on any type of moral fact, at

least we can determine what is right and wrong strictly a priori from our innate altruism. It does

seem increasingly difficult to believe that it is though, because that would imply that we are

really good at teaching society to abandon that belief at a young age.

moral knowledge and its pertinence to life 5

Tolstoys belief comes to a comfort in the innate ability to decide right and wrong for

oneself, at least assuming that youve acquired gods revelation about whats good and whats

evil.
moral knowledge and its pertinence to life 6

References

Tolstoy, Leo (1869) & Hutchins, Robert M. (1952) War and Peace in Great Books of the Western

World (Vol.51, pp. 214-216, 304-305, 514, 611, 645-646) Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Brittanica,

Inc.

Campbell, Richmond, "Moral Epistemology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =

<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/moral-epistemology/>