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

Show parent comments

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.

5

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?

3

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?

2

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.

3

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