[Serious] Ethics

[polymath257]

That thi sis a goal is a matter of opinion (admittedly a common one).

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.

[Ahriman]

Is it ever ethical to have children? In literally ANY case?

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

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.

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.

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

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Is it ever ethical to have children? In literally ANY case?

Yes. It’s also ethical to not have children, in literally ANY case.

Boru

[GrandizerII]

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.

I think I understand where you coming from with this. It's true that there tends to be a widespread agreement on the axioms that have been established in mathematics whereas it's hard to find something equivalent to this in ethics.

Nevertheless there is something intuitive about the statement that chopping off anyone's arms for fun is wrong, even in the absence of knowing what exactly makes it wrong. It doesn't seem to be just an opinion.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not hard at all to find that in ethics. Peoples idea of ethics as a subject is far removed from it's actual state. As far as knowledge, Bel touched on this earlier - a technical explanation is that the shared axiom between science, math -and contemporary ethics-, that knowledge is attainable, is so far down and underneath every other set of statements piled on top - hundreds of positions to arrive at any of the three subjects - that diminishing the axiom in ethics necessarily calls into question the entirety of the other two enterprises on equivalent grounds.

If there can be no facts, then there are no facts in math or science either. If there can be facts in math and science, there can be facts in ethics. Objections to the attainability of knowledge in ethics alone among the three is an exercise in baseless special pleading that fundamentally rejects an axiom shared by any knowledge claim. Even if we ignore the first part...since we've decided that when two people do not share axioms the issue of their objection is meaningless......we're left holding the bag yet again.

It is a common opinion that all of ethics is mere opinion - but it's a baseless and inexplicable opinion on it's own grounds, and it's not well evidenced in the practical application of ethics. Both science and math have been used to falsify that conjecture, ironically. The explanation for why people think that doesn't have anything to do with ethics, but the circumstances of history. Essentially, it's an accidental position that people are strongly committed to when they happen to hold it. Or, at least they report as much, even if an exploration of their own ethics would show that they do not genuinely hold such a position.

[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.

[GrandizerII]

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.

The point is that there is a massive collection of types of math problems that have solutions which most, if not all, mathematicians can agree on because there are axioms that they all agree on. We don't have something comparable to that in ethics. While ethicists may agree on some basic starting point such as "do no harm", anything beyond that is pretty much in dispute among ethicists.

So I can see why someone like polymath would then conclude that ethics does not lead to knowledge while mathematics does, even though I don't fully agree with him on that.

[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?

[The Grand Nudger]

Begs the question. What you'd find if you went searching was that there are, likewise, a massive collection of ethical problems that have solutions which most, if not all, ethicists can agree on because there are axioms that they all agree on. That's what it means to be an advocate of a specific ethical theory. Just as in math, there are a ton of specialists working in subsets from those shared axioms.