4 ms·

Completely agreed. But one major area that science, in my opinion, cannot answer is the question "how should we live?" Science almost by definition strives to b

by Erik816 10y ago

Completely agreed. But one major area that science, in my opinion, cannot answer is the question "how should we live?" Science almost by definition strives to be objective and value-neutral. But the question of how to live is subjective and value-laden. Unfortunately, academic philosophy seems to have almost completely abandoned this pursuit, instead focusing on areas that can be considered more "scientific."

goatlover 10y ago
The other areas of philosophy can inform how we should live questions. For example, if science were to show that free will, at least as traditionally conceived, was impossible, how does that effect our lives? Should our system of justice be changed to reflect that (as some have thought)? Daniel Dennett wrote a book defending a compatibilist version of free will because he was worried about the hard determinist influence on politics. Another example from the 18th or 19th century was when doctors thought dogs were just automatons, lacking any consciousness. Which allowed them to perform cruel medical experiments on the dogs, and ignore their howlings. But if we become convinced that animals are conscious and can experience pain and misery, do we change how we treat them?
- Erik816 10y ago
  Certainly. I think science, and more objective areas of philosophy, are great at providing information about the world. And that should certainly factor into the discussions of how we should live in that world. They just can't determine it.
- ryuker16 10y ago
  Depends on how tasty the animal is. The more self-aware an animal is, the less tasty it becomes. Cows, seafood, and pigs simply lack the divine park. Source: my stomach
igravious 10y ago
No, this isn't true. Ethics is a huge part of academic philosophy, some would say too large a part. We have regular ethics, bio-ethics, environmental ethics, meta-ethics, and on and on. The question "how ought we live" can be studied objectively and philosophy does just that. Do not confuse this with the subjective and value-laden responses to the question which themselves can be studied and analysed dispassionately. In general it is best not to throw around terms like subjective and objective because they are fraught with historical baggage and misconception.
- Erik816 10y ago
  This is probably too large of a topic to debate on a message board, but I would claim that the subject of "how ought we to live" is much larger than the small subset of issues discussed in academic philosophy under the rubric of "ethics." And while I agree that subjective/objective is a murky distinction, I still think it's useful.

by Erik816 10y ago

goatlover 10y ago

The other areas of philosophy can inform how we should live questions. For example, if science were to show that free will, at least as traditionally conceived, was impossible, how does that effect our lives? Should our system of justice be changed to reflect that (as some have thought)? Daniel Dennett wrote a book defending a compatibilist version of free will because he was worried about the hard determinist influence on politics. Another example from the 18th or 19th century was when doctors thought dogs were just automatons, lacking any consciousness. Which allowed them to perform cruel medical experiments on the dogs, and ignore their howlings. But if we become convinced that animals are conscious and can experience pain and misery, do we change how we treat them?

Erik816 10y ago
Certainly. I think science, and more objective areas of philosophy, are great at providing information about the world. And that should certainly factor into the discussions of how we should live in that world. They just can't determine it.
ryuker16 10y ago
Depends on how tasty the animal is. The more self-aware an animal is, the less tasty it becomes. Cows, seafood, and pigs simply lack the divine park. Source: my stomach

igravious 10y ago

No, this isn't true. Ethics is a huge part of academic philosophy, some would say too large a part. We have regular ethics, bio-ethics, environmental ethics, meta-ethics, and on and on. The question "how ought we live" can be studied objectively and philosophy does just that. Do not confuse this with the subjective and value-laden responses to the question which themselves can be studied and analysed dispassionately. In general it is best not to throw around terms like subjective and objective because they are fraught with historical baggage and misconception.

Erik816 10y ago
This is probably too large of a topic to debate on a message board, but I would claim that the subject of "how ought we to live" is much larger than the small subset of issues discussed in academic philosophy under the rubric of "ethics." And while I agree that subjective/objective is a murky distinction, I still think it's useful.