Posted by alexandra_k on March 11, 2005, at 21:02:22
In reply to Re: Another go... » alexandra_k, posted by jay on March 10, 2005, at 20:28:13
Thanks for that. That was an interesting account of the scientific method and how it can be used to falsify / lend support to scientific hypotheses such as 'being abused as a child tends to lead to abusing children'.
If you make a claim like 'culture x believes that torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable' then you can attempt to falsify or lend support to this claim by conducting a survey or whatever.
In asking whether anyone believes it is acceptable or not; whether any culture believes it is acceptable or not you are asking psychological or anthropological or sociological questions that can be answered via scientific method. If you want to know why some people do this then you can attempt to answer that by using the scientific method to falsify / lend support to hypotheses, as you explained.But what we want to know is:
Is it wrong to torture babies for fun?
(not why do people do it - but is what they are doing a morally reprehensible thing to do?)
The scientific method doesn't really apply that one. The study of literature, aesthetics, religion, consciousness (IMO), and ethics transcend available scientific method. Will there ever be a science of ethics? We will need to develop scientific method considerably first...
(The role of thought experiments - those nasty cases considered in the above threads is part of the methodology of ethics. We 'test' a theory by seeing what 'verdict' it delivers if we 'input' a particular situation into the theory and ask what the theory tells us we 'should' do. Then we test the verdict against out intuition as to what is and is not acceptable and either refine the theory or revise our intuitions... and that is how ethical theories progress and our 'knowledge of ethical rights and wrongs' accumulates. But I digress. -Just wanted to point out that there are methods that do sort of approximate or resemble scientific ones... But to consider that it is possible to study ethics 'scientifically' then that kind of presupposes that there will be consensus in the end. That different people studying the same thing independently will hit upon the 'same thing'. That there are universal ethical truths the same way that there are universal laws of nature - even though we might not know what they are yet.)
Suppose everyone in the world (but you) believed it was perfectly acceptable.
Wouldn't you want to say that all those people are wrong?
I would say that people are attracted to relativism because they believe it promotes tolerance.
But saying 'oh well, if you believe torturing babies for fun is acceptable because ethics is all a matter of personal preference and who am I to judge you' then that is being a little too tolerant IMO.
We need to draw the line...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:468601
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050305/msgs/469869.html