I think that there is moral knowledge, but that it is limited and cumulative, like the knowledge that we have of science. We cannot derive all moral knowledge from personal experience, any more than we would likely personally come up with the Second Law of Thermodynamics each on our own, but have to derive some of it from philosophy and other sources of intelligent observation and analysis. We have to live with the fact that some of it may be superceded or modified, as was Newtonian mechanics by quantum physics and relativity, but we can count on progress over generations, and be fairly confident in the state of our understanding, given evident advances in the organization of society. Also, of course, some things were more or less known for ages, just as Archimedes had elementary insights into mechanics.
I think that we can judge events with some confidence according to the principles we have, knowing that we may have to revise them, but doing our best according to the current state of knowledge. When judging of particular events, it is primarily the lack of complete information which limits certainty. We can be more secure in our opinion the more transparent the situation. How much emotions may distort our judgment is dependent on how big a stake we feel in the outcome of the judgment, which is why we should not trust the objectivity of highly partial judges. The fact that we can judge against self- interest, however, is proven in that we can be convicted by our own consciences, and experience guilt, rather than always excusing ourselves. |
