RE: Subjective Morality?
October 28, 2018 at 2:51 pm
(This post was last modified: October 28, 2018 at 2:52 pm by vulcanlogician.)
The question that needs to be deemed irrelevant is: "Why should I care?"
Chemist: Water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
Detractor: Why should I care?
There is nothing in the universe that needs to make you care. If you don't care, you don't care. That has no bearing on whether or not something is true.
Science: aims to discern what is true about nature. If you don't care, you don't care. That doesn't change the fact that science can produce applicable truth statements.
Like the scientist seeks to understand the properties of nature, the ethicist seeks to understand if there are right or wrong actions.
Detractor: Why should I care?
Just like nothing in the universe will force you to care about scientific facts, nothing in the universe will force you to care about moral facts. Just because you don't care about something doesn't make it any more or less true.
Scientist: What are the properties of nature?
Logician: How might I arrive at correct conclusions?
Ethicist: How can I determine what actions are right?
It doesn't matter if you don't care about these questions. These questions will be pursued by those who do care.
People expect too much from ethicists. They want them to produce an entire and infallible rendition of the prefered oughts, seamless and complete. But they don't demand that of scientists. Scientists understand our universe step-by-step. First we observe stars in our own galaxy and note laws of gravitation. Then we discover that there are a whole plethora of galaxies. Then we learn that our universe is expanding. If only ethicists were allowed the privilege of learning the truth step-by-step.
Chemist: Water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
Detractor: Why should I care?
There is nothing in the universe that needs to make you care. If you don't care, you don't care. That has no bearing on whether or not something is true.
Science: aims to discern what is true about nature. If you don't care, you don't care. That doesn't change the fact that science can produce applicable truth statements.
Like the scientist seeks to understand the properties of nature, the ethicist seeks to understand if there are right or wrong actions.
Detractor: Why should I care?
Just like nothing in the universe will force you to care about scientific facts, nothing in the universe will force you to care about moral facts. Just because you don't care about something doesn't make it any more or less true.
Scientist: What are the properties of nature?
Logician: How might I arrive at correct conclusions?
Ethicist: How can I determine what actions are right?
It doesn't matter if you don't care about these questions. These questions will be pursued by those who do care.
People expect too much from ethicists. They want them to produce an entire and infallible rendition of the prefered oughts, seamless and complete. But they don't demand that of scientists. Scientists understand our universe step-by-step. First we observe stars in our own galaxy and note laws of gravitation. Then we discover that there are a whole plethora of galaxies. Then we learn that our universe is expanding. If only ethicists were allowed the privilege of learning the truth step-by-step.
