Subjective decisions and ethics
Hello, Your Honor.. It is accepted in your words that ethics has axioms. As, for example, in your article on vegetarianism, you developed the motif of a universal morality that is self-evident and self-evident. You compared scientific axioms to ethical axioms in order to prove the validity of the claim to ethical axioms. And here the questioner asked.. Personal decisions can never be universal. The only thing that can be universal and shared among humans is science. Chemistry, physics, biology, geology, and astronomy. Everything that has scientific proof is universal. Personal decisions are subject to the subject, (or as Leibowitz puts it) the sole authority of consciousness. No person has any ability to recognize these decisions, and their motives. They vary from person to person, and cannot be observed or predicted. Leibowitz’s clear example is a camera and a human eye. Science in both can prove the passage of photons to the camera/eye retina. However, science cannot say anything about the question… Do I see? This is a subjective matter. Therefore, subjective decisions do not belong to universality. And they do not belong to universal axioms, because the concept of axioms, and even more so the concept of universalism, belongs only to science.
Hello Neria.
I disagree. Science is also based on a priori assumptions that have no empirical confirmation. For example, the principle of causality and induction. Scientific generalization is a mental step, not an observational one, since any collection of facts can be generalized in several ways. Therefore, in both cases, we are dealing with fundamental assumptions that cannot be proven. In general, since Popper it has been clear that a scientific theory or a scientific law is not proven, but at most confirmed.
Therefore, the existence of basic assumptions is not a challenge to anything. There is no field that is not based on basic assumptions. It is true that in a scientific context, a broader consensus is created than in the fields of taste and smell (as in artistic taste). But I think this is only a quantitative question. The fundamental principles of morality are usually agreed upon by most people, and the arguments are only on the margins. And even in an argument, one can be convinced. Therefore, I do not accept your assumption (!) that morality is relative. At most, you could say that there is no consensus on all moral instructions, but that does not mean that there is no right or wrong instruction. The fact that one argues does not mean that both sides are right. Even the fact that one cannot be convinced does not mean that both are right. It just means that sometimes one cannot be convinced. I also cannot convince many people that the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics is correct. They will not be able to follow the arguments due to lack of knowledge and/or lack of talent.
It is true that there is no observational confirmation of moral theses, because morality is not an empirical field. But empiricism is not a necessary condition for truth.
Good week.
When I talked about science. I talked about pure science. Without any intellectual theories beyond that. Any specific fact that is scientifically proven. Like the example I gave that photons pass through the retina of the eye/camera – it is a scientific fact that is confirmed by a type of technological observation.
Scientific fundamental principles, even though they are intellectual and not observational, like the principle of causality, are still a type of initial conclusion from observation of the world. (If I'm not mistaken, you call it intuition in your book) That intuition and intellectual conclusion is the result of a specific observation, on which a mental inference is built. On the other hand, in matters of ethics, there is no observation that would cause intuition. Usually, the accepted observation for moral standards is society, but the constitutive observation of private morality is the decision of the person himself as an individual to act in a certain way. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say that a teaching is right or wrong, just or unjust, is completely subjective.
Empiricism is not a necessary condition for truth. However, ethics can never use the terms of just and right. Not because of a lack of empiricism, but precisely because of polarization in the field of subjectivity.
Hello Neria. In my book Truth and Unstable and in the fourth book, I explained that morality is also the result of observation. However, the means of observation are a bit vague, and therefore there are arguments. But for the most part there is agreement. I see no difference between this and the principle of causality, and in my opinion, truth and falsehood can be used in both cases. Anyone who thinks differently from me morally is wrong (in my opinion), just as on the factual level. The question of how far one can prove that he is wrong is a different question.
If morality is the result of covert observation..
So someone who grew up in Syria, Yemen, and many places in Africa will have completely different moral standards than standards in the United States, Europe, Israel, etc.?
I don't think so. On most things there is agreement. Beyond that, even in points of disagreement there is a direction of progress. Usually the more primitive societies accept the moral principles of the West and not vice versa. This means that this morality is more advanced (sorry for the politically incorrect bluntness).
And above all, even if there is disagreement it does not mean that there is no truth. It is possible that one is right and the other is wrong. The question of how to convince is a different question, as I have already written.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
