Philosophy Now Forum

prof wrote:Let's get ging.

If objective, universal morality exists – and (as I have explained in my other posts here) it does - then there is no reason why we ought not get busy constructing a science of Ethics (to parallel a science of Physics, and a science of Medicine) which would overlap and intersect with related disciplines such as Moral Psychology, Education, Political Science, Economics, Evolutionary Biology, Psychotherapy, and the Social Sciences.

It would include and incorporate into itself findings from all these sources mentioned. It would use Formal Axiology as its meta-language, since it defines with precision the relevant value terminology.

There is plenty of moral data: every time someone aids another, or helps someone else succeed in improving the quality of life. or contributes by devising a technology that makes the miserable more comfortable or that brings world-peace closer, or makes education more effective, etc., new moral data arises.

The science known as Ethics would organize, analyze, systematize, and facilitate the understanding and comprehension of such data.


Comments? Questions?

I suspect that sociology and criminology both already do this to a certain extent.

Remember that ancient Greek religion was first on the scene historically.

This was followed by ancient Greek philosophy which questioned the seriousness of the Greek pantheon.

Aristotle himself then gave religion a very close haircut by limiting rational religion to his first and only philosophical proof of God -- "The Prime Mover".

Augustine and Aquinas in their turn each reconciled Plato and Aristotle to early Christianity and religion revived.

Religion under the Roman Popes actually then became the political powerhouse of Europe.

This is what Galileo bumped his head up against when he invented science with his home made telescope which he pointed towards the planet Jupiter for the first time in history. Thus astrophysics was born, and astronomy was no longer just the naming of stars and constellations.

Sociology and criminology were then each born individually. They ask why do some humans prey upon others while the majority are moral and ethical in their behavior?

Greetings, yiostheoy

Thank you for a fine contribution to the discussion
That was a good capsule review of both the history of moral concepts and the birth of physical science, as well as a tribute to some of the philosophers who played a part. [Once I did the same sort of thing myself, skipping over Hedonism, and many other developments, as I wrote up a rapid summary of some of the history of ideas in Moral Philosophy relevant to ethics.] See: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10318
Also see - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14689

I do agree with those who hold that Sociology and Criminology are subsets of Ethics.

Yes, much ethical inquiry centers on the motivation of psychopaths and sociopaths. Science needs to continue examining the nature of their pathology, exploring questions such as these: What kind of brain damage do they have? And what are its origins? Is it preventable?

Karl Menninger, a psychiatrist, years ago, took an interest in Criminal Justice, and wrote in depth on the topic of how to handle offenders. See his magnum opus, The Crime of Punishment, now a classic.

You are eminently correct that most folks live in accordance with their moral sense [about which the Intuitionist school of philosophy spoke 400 years ago], a sense which triggers emotions of compassion, gratitude, loyalty, pride, anger, disgust, shame, contempt, and guilt. Today, Moral Psychologists, and Brain Neurologists such as Joshua Greene, at Princeton, maintain that normal people all have a moral sense that is prewired into the brain.

The manipulators, exploiters, systematic liars and cheaters are exceptions when the human species as a whole is considered. We do have 'croney capitalism' and members of Congress, and of parliaments, are bought off by those with selfish special interests; but in this case the system is corrupt as well as the individuals (who make Money their god.)

Ethics can be categorized into two branches: Individual Ethics and Social Ethics. Of course, they overlap. Social justice is a concern of Ethics, but so is what Aristotle attempted to describe. He called it "weakness of the will." It's a condition in which a person may recognize that something is morally right, and may even want to do what is right, but nonetheless is lured away from such by a stronger temptation.

I believe questions of motivation may best be handled by Psychologists, and Neurologists. {If they learn anything useful in this regard, it should be integrated into the science of Ethics.}

Once again, thanks for your deep insights.

Comments? Upgrades?

yiostheoy wrote:... Thus astrophysics was born, and astronomy was no longer just the naming of stars and constellations. ...

Never was, it also involved predicting their movements.

yiostheoy wrote:...

Augustine and Aquinas in their turn each reconciled Plato and Aristotle to early Christianity and religion revived.

...

'God' bless the Muslim's eh! As without them there would have been no Plato or Aristotle.

What's the point? Everyone breaks the rules at.least once, or comes up with a rationale for doing so.

If I have an itchy finger, and that finger is holding a lever that saves the world from blowing up, I'll eventually lift and scratch it. Human nature.

yiostheoy wrote: I suspect that sociology and criminology both already do this to a certain extent.

Way to miss the point fatty.
He is talking about a 'science' of some equivalence to those. And problem with that is the data.
It's very straight forward, none of that stuff he wants to measure is "ethics", it's other things standing in for it.
It therefore isn't a science of ethics, it's the measurement of things somewhat related to ethics.

With your constant bleating about Kant, you should have been on that one without assistance.