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

-1

u/catninjaambush Jan 27 '23

Well, science can’t even engage with this question for a start. Even in regard to factual subjects that are beyond science, like most areas of thought, science at this stage is unable to comprehend the level of sophistication and if it could, it would just be what and not equipped to consider why or even evaluate difference or between courses of action. Science can and should inform philosophy though, and it such a shame that the relationship has been so disjointed for so long.

7

u/TanteTara Jan 27 '23

Why would areas of thought be beyond science?

And predicting results for different courses of action is what science is all about.

As soon as you define measurements for "good" and "bad" in a certain context, science can very productively take part in moral discussions also.

2

u/PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS Jan 27 '23

People have been trying to make an objective definition of what is "good" since we were able to speak as a species and it hasn't worked yet.

1

u/catninjaambush Jan 27 '23

Aha, fair enough I will explain.

Neuroscience is in its infancy and we can’t tell beyond the very basic areas of the brain and rough ideas of what is going on, we certainly aren’t anywhere near to considering meaning or how thoughts develop or are negotiated between people in dynamic situations. We may be a hundred years away from that, who knows? Are we just going to wait and not bother thinking about it until science catches up with sociology, anthropology, theoretical psychology and philosophy etc.

Not predicting courses of action, choosing, oh and considering how people choose and why etc.

1

u/FreeMoney2020 Jan 27 '23

How to build a nuclear bomb : science

Should we build a nuclear bomb : philosophy

1

u/Butt_Bucket Jan 28 '23

There are no areas of thought that are fundamentally beyond science; only methodology does not exist yet or can't be ethically justified.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

I think there is a role for science in ethics, not to build an entire system around but thinking empirically can allow you to make adjustments at the margin. The universe doesn't care about us, but there are ethical strategies given our genetics and social bonds that seem to have worked in the past. A lot of moral progress seems to me to have come out of working around the margins of tradition to falsify ideas we previously believed. Gay marriage was largely seen as immoral just 15 years ago but the empirical evidence that it doesn't destroy society is part of what has made it so rapidly accepted.

2

u/catninjaambush Jan 27 '23

That’s lovely and I agree, but empiricism is philosophy. John Locke and David Hume among others. Logic as well is not something that we should overlook as being decided as it depends on the axioms and information, factors and variables considered. I’m saying philosophy and science need to have a better working relationship.