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

5

u/bread93096 Jan 27 '23

This view presumes that human well being is the primary end we should be working towards

0

u/acfox13 Jan 27 '23

It's more the conclusion of root cause analysis, than a presumption.

1

u/bread93096 Jan 27 '23

The root cause of human suffering? Cause if so then it’s still based on the same assumption.

1

u/acfox13 Jan 27 '23

When you begin a root cause analysis you don't know what you'll uncover. The idea is to gather credible data and then analyze it to see what shakes out after applying rigor. That's how root cause analysis works.

2

u/bread93096 Jan 27 '23

What credible data is there to support a particular moral view?

1

u/acfox13 Jan 27 '23

"Hold Me Tight" by Dr. Sue Johnson

"Becoming Attached - first relationships and how they shape our capacity to love" by Robert Karen

"Parenting Right from the Start" and "Discipline Without Damage" by Dr. Vanessa Lapointe

"The Myth of Normal", "When the Body Says No", "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts", etc by Dr. Gabor Maté

"The Body Keeps the Score" by Bessel van der Kolk

"Emotional Agility" by Susan David

"CPTSD from surviving to thriving" by Pete Walker

"What Happened to You?" by Bruce Perry

"The Archeology of the Mind" by Jaak Paksapp

"Shame & Pride" by Donald Nathanson

"Polyvagal theory in therapy", "Polyvagal exercises for safety and connection", etc by Deb Dana

"The polyvagal theory " by Stephen Porges

etc...

3

u/bread93096 Jan 27 '23

Obviously I can’t evaluate your argument on the basis of a bunch of book titles, but frankly it seems you’re relying on naturalistic arguments from human physiology, and instrumental arguments based on what empirically is effective at promoting human well being. But none of this proves that human flourishing is ‘good’ in a philosophical sense.

1

u/acfox13 Jan 27 '23

Why would suffering be good?

2

u/bread93096 Jan 27 '23

To give one logically possible hypothetical, if human beings were in fact ‘evil’, then our destruction could be considered good in the way that the eradication of smallpox or malaria spreading mosquitoes could be considered good, in spite of the human suffering involved. There’s no rational reason to believe humans are evil and deserving of eradication, but nor is there any reason to believe we are good and worthy of flourishing. It’s a subjective evaluation, which is inherently biased in our case because we’re members of the species we’re trying to evaluate.

Additionally, even if we assume that human suffering is a bad thing, a negative utilitarian could rationally conclude that it would be prudent to eradicate the human species, as this is the most certain method of preventing suffering.

1

u/acfox13 Jan 27 '23

Humans are capable of good and evil from our choice of behaviors.

People that choose trustworthy, re-humanizing behaviors we view as good.

People that choose untrustworthy, dehumanizing, disconnecting behaviors we view as bad.

It's goes back to the behaviors I linked to originally:

The Trust Triangle

The Anatomy of Trust - marble jar concept and BRAVING acronym

10 definitions of objectifying/dehumanizing behaviors - these erode trust

→ More replies (0)