Surname 1NameProfessorCourseDateRuss Shafer-Landau’s Argument on Moral Skepticism and Moral Objectivism The study of moral theories such as skepticism and objectivism are key stances of epistemology in philosophy. Ideally, it gives philosophers an opportunity to examine the contradicting nature of reality through metaphysical analysis. The former tends to deny the fact that human beings can have the knowledge of moral truth. On the contrary, the latter postulates that moral truth is independent of human perceptions and opinions. The book, What Happened toGood and Evil? (Oxford University Press, 2004): by Shafer-Landau delves into the constructs of reality in the modern society. Accordingly, people choose to be more skeptical or doubtful about ideas and norms, which from a philosophical perspective can either be right or wrong depending on the context. Similarly, this is the same case with objectivists who believe that regardless of what people think, certain moral facts or truths often remain independently of their understanding and inferences of them. Tersely, this theory may seem accurate since such facts always form novel concepts that relate to the very emblem of reality. Notably, Shafer-Landau condemns moral skepticism and shows total satisfaction towards his undoubted conviction that moral knowledge is a vital part of the human existence. Contrarily, the author endorses moral objectivism because people have a tendency of discovering moral truths and facts rather than inventing them (Shafer-Landau 2). Additionally, there is no moral justification to differentiate between what is good and evil or determine what is right and wrong. Briefly, Shafer-Landau is right to condemn moral skepticism although his endorsement of moral objectivism is unsound.
Surname 2Morality is independent of human intervention since it is not easy to ascertain whether it is a moral standard drafted by human beings or a divine lawmaker. Russ Shafer-Landau’s philosophical argument against moral skepticism stems from the epistemological depiction of objective moral standards. Although the author is an atheist who believes that there is no God, it is quite interesting to see how the philosopher rebuts on an opinion that he does not hold true. Specifically, he argues that moral laws are objective, hence they are presided over by a supernatural being who is not human. Theists tend to value this fact since they believe that someone, obviously God, played a key role in drafting the laws governingmorality. The author is among a few atheists who believe that there is no God, hence there is no objective in morals since they tend to be subjective. Yet, they still believe in the fact that written