[Serious] Ethics

[Angrboda]

Here -- as always -- your view is shaped by your conviction that only science gives knowledge. It's the way you define what a fact is that rules out ethical facts.

It might be worthwhile considering that either other kinds of facts (non-scientific ones) are possible, or that some of what you call opinion has a force that is fully as strong as a scientific fact.

"It is bad to chop the arms off of healthy babies for fun" is, if not a fact, every bit as strong as one. To deny it is more insane than denying that the earth is round.

But I don't think that only science can give knowledge.

Mathematics also gives knowledge. but math does not give knowledge *about the real world*. it gives knowledge about certain formal systems.

The reason science can give knowledge is that there is a definite challenge procedure: if two people disagree, they try to find an observation that can be made to determine who is wrong. If no such observation is possible (even in theory), the two viewpoints are considered to be equivalent. otherwise, the observation is made and one of the views is excluded.

In math, if two people disagree, they try to find a proof one way or the other. There are established axioms and rules of deduction and those determine the correctness of any proposed proof. if the two people do not share an axiom system, the question is considered to be meaningless. if there is a proof of two contradictory statements, then the axiom system is declared to be deficient.

Now, what is the challenge procedure for an ethical question? Suppose that two people disagree about a trolley problem. How is the matter resolved? How is it determined who is wrong?

If no such procedure is to be found, it isn't a subject that leads to knowledge.

Now, I would be very interested in such a procedure for ethics. it would be a tremendous breakthrough, allowing ethics to, finally, be a subject of knowledge, rather than opinion. But none is evident and I don't know of anyone who thinks there is such. Kant proposed one,  but it is self-defeating.

I'm not sure I can agree with you on these points.

In math, there are fundamental assumptions which lead to different mathematical systems. We don't conclude that all math is meaningless as a result. Your definitions of what the test matrices yield seems driven by conclusions that you want to reach, rather than facts.