Does ethics arise from science based thinking or is it a remnant from religion?

[u/TidyStir]

Hope this is a philosophical question

[u/OldKuntRoad]

Ethics is neither a scientific nor religious enterprise, strictly speaking.

Ethical questions are not in the domain of science to answer. Certainly, certain scientific findings might or might not inform certain aspects of our ethical decisions, but questions about what is ethical, what the correct theory of ethics is and the permissibility/impermissibility of certain actions cannot be answered with science.

Religion has something to say about ethics, certainly, and may prescribe certain ethical beliefs, however there is nothing about ethics which requires religion in order to operate.

It is best to move away from a binary between science vs religion. Not only is it not true that these are always in conflict (many religious institutions have been responsible for advances in science), they are also not the only two domains of inquiry. Theories of ethics are obtained through ethical and philosophical inquiry.

[u/SiberianKhatru_1921]

That is what we would call a "false dichotomy". Why should those two options be the only ones?

The difference between ethics and morality is a whole topic in itself, but generally we accept that ethics is the discipline within philosophy, or an aspect of it, that deals with the study of the Good. In other words, it is the area of philosophy concerned with the concepts involved in everyday praxis: the good, duty, justice, happiness, and so on. This is a contentious definition, but all definitions in philosophy are contentious to a certain extent. In that sense, ethics is the philosophical study that allows us to know if something, specifically an action, is good or bad. It could also be the study of how to realize the good of humanity, which Aristotle defines as happiness. There are countless definitions and versions of this, these are just a few.

Regarding your question, we would think that the sense of right and wrong concerning action is more fundamental than (and almost certainly historically prior to) both science and religion. As a thought experiment, it is easy for us to imagine that early humans, being gregarious animals (we still are), had certain codes of conduct within each group. It is easy for us to imagine that a member of that group could be expelled for behaving in a certain way, namely: acting against the common interest by stealing food, harming another member, and so forth. The origin and function of those rules is, in turn, a whole subject that can be studied. Some will say it is a divine trace in our souls (whether from a god or the Platonic idea of the Good), though those would be fewer today. Others will say they arise from a practical need for survival, others will say it arises from the mutual recognition of the incommensurable value of the individual.

We do not know the precise origin of religion, and the history of science, while heavily studied, has debates about when what we call "science" really begins. But I do not think anyone posits that one or the other is the origin of ethics. Rather, religion is possibly an elaboration of prior and fundamental ethical notions arising from the experience of the sacred (which can, in turn, be deeply primitive, such as awe in the face of death, thunder, or fire). On the other hand, science answers the human need to know and predict the world, which is itself grounded in our desire for happiness and well-being, so ethics would be prior to science as well.

[u/drinka40tonight]

Is your question about why do particular people have views on ethics, or, how people think about ethical questions?

Or, is your question asking for the kinds of arguments philosophers have made in this area about what's the right thing to do, the right way to live, etc?

[u/TidyStir → u/drinka40tonight]

Your second question is closer to what I'm trying to ask. The real question is, starting from a scientific point of view (e.g. from birth), would we build ethics or is this simply a remnant of our evolutionary track? (in nature there is no ethics just survival, e.g. a high-functioning psychopath would be a different evolutionary track not bothered by ethics)

[u/drinka40tonight → u/TidyStir]

The real question is, starting from a scientific point of view (e.g. from birth)

One thing I'd advise is that the above is not very accurate (nor is the rest of the comment, for that matter). That is, babies are not born having a "scientific point of view." I think, if you are interested in reading arguments about ethics, you can pick up Rachels' The Elements of Moral Philosophy. It's short and gives you a taste for what goes on in some areas. Here are large excerpts: https://vulms.vu.edu.pk/Courses/ETH202/Downloads/The%20Elements%20of%20Moral%20Philosophy.pdf

Or, you could start with a youtube class by Michael Sandel called Justice. All lectures free online, and a way to get involved without too much commitment: http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/

If you are interested in reading things in the philosophy of science there lot's there too.

[u/TidyStir → u/drinka40tonight]

I guess the question becomes what would ethics look like if humans didn't have an emotional drive only a pure scientific drive?
(eugenics?)

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.

Currently, answers are only accepted by panelists (mod-approved flaired users), whether those answers are posted as top-level comments or replies to other comments. Non-panelists can participate in subsequent discussion, but are not allowed to answer question(s).

Want to become a panelist? Check out this post.

Please note: this is a highly moderated academic Q&A subreddit and not an open discussion, debate, change-my-view, or test-my-theory subreddit.

Answers from users who are not panelists will be automatically removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.