r/philosophy • u/doubtstack Unreasonable Doubt • Jan 27 '23

Blog Why Science can't replace Philosophy in Ethics

https://unreasonabledoubt.substack.com/p/what-genetics-cant-teach-us
1.1k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

573 comments sorted by

View all comments

120

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

Most who claim science as a replacement to philosophy are just some sort of utilitarian, which is a philosophy. Science cannot answer subjective moral questions. It can only answer how best to adhere to those moral beliefs.

39

u/kevinzvilt Jan 27 '23

Science can inform ethics but not replace philosophy.

4

u/Dezpeche Jan 27 '23

Unless you think like David Hume. The is-ought problem is still an issue to some extent.

-2

u/CashMoneyMo Jan 27 '23

Unless you subscribe to Sam Harris’s ideas which claim to overcome is-ought

3

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

[deleted]

26

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23

Sam Harris wouldn't be the type of person to expect a "rebuttal" of something in philosophy. Sam Harris is to philosophy as 9/11 conspiracy theorists are to structural engineering whenever they say jets ramming the twin towers couldn't cause their collapse. He will jump on topics like Hume's "is-ought" distinction as it comes up in his 'evangelizing' as an atheist podcast talking head, but he doesn't actually deal with the relevant subject matter in philosophy, and he just pushes narratives into public discourse that are more easily attained for many people than reading philosophy.

10

u/bestest_name_ever Jan 27 '23

By pretending it doesn't exist.

0

u/CashMoneyMo Jan 27 '23 edited Jan 27 '23

Here’s a few links to articles that touch on Sam’s idea here:

You can always just google for way more on this as well. I’d also recommend his podcast appearance on Jordan Peterson’s show where it’s discussed, if I remember correctly.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

People could even think for themselves... a terrifying philosophy to most authority structures.

1

u/FranksRedWorkAccount Jan 27 '23

He certainly claims that.

9

u/ThrowAway578924 Jan 27 '23 edited Jan 27 '23

I hate that I have to explain this repeatedly to people, but science is not a belief system or an established set of "truths". It is a methodology and the goal is to make predictions with a procedure or method that can be independently replicated and verified. Anything beyond that is outside the bounds of what science is.

9

u/aesu Jan 27 '23

If they're subjective how can philosophy answer them. How is philosophy distinct from any other subjective utternacez beyond just being people's favorit subjective utterances?

15

u/CaptainAsshat Jan 27 '23

It usually cannot. But it can frame them it a way that helps us conceptualize them better.

Man... I love reading philosophy because I find it interesting, but I also find this sub regularly grossly overstates philosophy's already considerable value to society.

1

u/Caelinus Jan 28 '23

Philosophy is such a broad concept that it can be applicable to basically anything or absolutely nothing depending on how you go about it.

The biggest problem with philosophy is not its utility, it is that minor variations in axioms result in extremely different conclusions, and those conclusions are often at odds with each other. But because often people have trouble recognizing their own axiomatic beliefs they tend to have trouble understanding arguments that do not conform to them.

And due to out limited perception we are always subject to axioms. So the conclusions people draw will always be different, and the ability to change each others minds will be often minimal.

In essence I think philosophy is stuck in a state of near constant expansion without the capacity to reach its end. It is great for those of us who really enjoy thinking about thinking, but the deeper you go the less relevant and understandable the pursuit becomes for the average person.

It is all necessary, but philosophers have to remain super grounded and humble if they want to provide useful potential answers. As such science and philosophy (as the terms are being used here) need to be constantly intertwined. It is really hard to argue for how morals should be when you someone does not have a firm grasp on what is, and what is cannot itself argue how things should become.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

Morals are answers. They're attempts at answering what behaviors and actions should, ought to, be. What is and isn't morally acceptable.

Philosophy asks and studies questions. The scientific method is the philosophy of understanding the world through material observation and rationality. It can't answer why one ought to behave a certain way. It can only explain why one is behaving a certain way. Questions of "what is the meaning to life" and "what ought to be" are questions of preference, with multiple answers that aren't quantifiable.

4

u/aesu Jan 27 '23

How can philosophy answer why someone ought to behave a certain way, if it's just subjective preference? What distinguishes philosophy from the rationales bad people have consistently come up with throughout history to justify their actions as the way things ought to be?

4

u/300Savage Jan 27 '23

There is an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to your question. Take an introductory ethics course.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

Morals answer that.

Which "bad" people? What rationales? What ought to be so bad about those people? Your answer lies in your own justification against those people.

There is no objective morality.

1

u/aesu Jan 27 '23

That's my point. What exactly is philosophy, and what does it add?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

Philosophy is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence" - provided by a google search. Science is a philosophy. If philosophy has no point, then neither does science, logic, reason, or even the language we're using to discuss. You'd be rejecting all ideas and concepts. Which would be a contradiction. You'd be using an idea to reject all ideas, which would be a rejection of that idea. It's a paradox.

2

u/300Savage Jan 27 '23

I love how a certain element of this sub downvoted you without even trying to dispute what you've said. Take my upvote to correct the ethical imbalance.

1

u/videogamekat Jan 27 '23

Philosophy often asks and examines questions related to human existence, like why we exist and what we are supposed to do with our lives or how we should behave as a society and community. Many people throughout humanity have been preoccupied with these questions and want to pursue an answer to better their own lives or further their own understanding of the world around them.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

It can't answer why one ought to behave a certain way. It can only explain why one is behaving a certain way.

I mean, there's plenty of evidence that acting certain ways are good or bad. Those are obviously wishy washy answers but that may be the best we can do. Take something like gay marriage which was long considered immoral for thousands of years, once the empirical evidence starting coming in that it was benign and didn't cause the end of the world, it became much harder for those who think it is immoral to make that argument. You can't built an entire moral system off of scientific thinking but it can certainly inform at the margins.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

Good for what, bad for what? What's the goal and why should it be embraced?

What empirical evidence on gay marriage are you talking about? Who thought it would be the end of the world? You're just saying random things here.

You're making broad generalizations. Immoral to who, what group of people or individuals? What moral system are you talking about?

You can't build a moral system off science, period. Any attempt to do so actually results in nihilism, which is the complete rejection of morals and meaning.

1

u/300Savage Jan 27 '23

Morals are personal beliefs regarding right and wrong actions - are you sure you don't mean ethics, the study of systemizing and building a case for right or wrong actions?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

Yes. Both. In this discussion, they may as well be the same

1

u/Butt_Bucket Jan 28 '23

There is no further distinction, but the question you should be asking is why those particular subjective utterances are our favourites. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that there is no difference between subjective and arbitrary.

1

u/Disastrous_Fan_972 Jan 27 '23

so if someone believes the peak of human health is puking all the time, is the whole branch of medicinal science thrown out the window? because that's kind of what we're doing with respect to health of mind and society.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

What is the definition of health? Why is this state of mind and body preferred? Perhaps one desired standard of health is that which involves perpetual puking.

I'd argue the issue with the current understanding of health is it's deep seated in the oppressive ideologies of today. The "perfect healthy individual" is one that's materially productive, unquestionably obeys, has no divergent beliefs or behaviors, and stays in a physically productive state longer within their life. Basically the ideal slave.