[Serious] Ethics

[polymath257]

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.

You just mentioned that it's possible for there to be no such resolution in science.  For two theories to be considered equivalent.  The same is true in objective ethics.  If it doesn't reduce science to a point where there can be no knowledge, it doesn't reduce ethics to a point where there can be no knowledge, either.

Yes, observationally equivalent theories are considered to be equivalent in science.

The basis is observation for *all* questions in science. if there is no difference in observations between two theories, they *are the same theory*.

This isn't a matter of 'not resolving' a dispute. it is a matter of saying the dispute is nonsense. Where in ethics does that happen?

Math, you went straight to proof - evergreen in the context of ethics, as well.  If you can prove two contradictory statements with an ethical system then the axioms are seen to be deficient.

I went to proof in mathematics, because that is the standard in math (proof from an accepted axiom system, specially ZFC set theory).

You ask how knowledge can be found in ethics.  The same way it's found in anything else.  Sound premises, valid inferences, true conclusions.

OK, how does one find sound premises in ethics? On what basis are they declared to be sound?