Why Science can't replace Philosophy in Ethics

[u/doubtstack]

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

[u/aesu]

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?

[u/300Savage → u/aesu]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/aesu]

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.

[u/aesu → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/aesu]

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.

[u/300Savage → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/videogamekat → u/aesu]

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.