4 ms·

Science can settle (or at least inform) a debate over how to govern society correctly if you define certain tangible features or goals that a correct society sh

Science can settle (or at least inform) a debate over how to govern society correctly if you define certain tangible features or goals that a correct society should have. If you agree upfront that a correct society should seek to e.g. maximize individual happiness, or maximize economic output, or whatever, there are scientific arguments that would support one policy over another. It's also worth noting that a lot of what Aristotle (as opposed to Plato) as well as many of the Pre-Socratics actually wrote about would today be considered scientific topics. Aristotle speculated about physics and natural systems using abstract reasoning. Many of his conclusions are empirically falsifiable and have been falsified. It's simply that empiricism itself as an epistemological tool had not yet been fully appreciated in Classical Greece.

woodruffw 10y ago
> If you agree upfront that a correct society should seek to e.g. maximize individual happiness, or maximize economic output, or whatever, there are scientific arguments that would support one policy over another. These are both utilitarian concessions, building upon a philosophical model of the Right in terms of a maximized final Good. You may be able to find a "scientific" answer within them (Bentham did exactly that), but you'll be hard pressed to conclude that such an answer is reasonable in any of the ways that we would expect a theory of perfect government to be.
hueving 10y ago
>maximize individual happiness But even this goal falls apart at the abortion debate. When the argument is about whether or not you are killing a human, then there are very different paths to maximizing individual happiness depending on the conclusion.
CM30 10y ago
> If you agree upfront that a correct society should seek to e.g. maximize individual happiness, or maximize economic output, or whatever, there are scientific arguments that would support one policy over another. And that's the key. How do you define what a 'correct' society should seek to do? What might make some people materially/'objectively' better off may also make them miserable. What makes people happier may make the world worse by encouraging people to 'waste' their lives on meaningless things (like say, virtual reality experiences). What makes most lives better might make a lot of other people happy (the utilitarian issue). Science cannot say what the goal you're trying to achieve is. That's where philosophy comes in.

woodruffw 10y ago

> If you agree upfront that a correct society should seek to e.g. maximize individual happiness, or maximize economic output, or whatever, there are scientific arguments that would support one policy over another. These are both utilitarian concessions, building upon a philosophical model of the Right in terms of a maximized final Good. You may be able to find a "scientific" answer within them (Bentham did exactly that), but you'll be hard pressed to conclude that such an answer is reasonable in any of the ways that we would expect a theory of perfect government to be.

hueving 10y ago

>maximize individual happiness But even this goal falls apart at the abortion debate. When the argument is about whether or not you are killing a human, then there are very different paths to maximizing individual happiness depending on the conclusion.

CM30 10y ago

> If you agree upfront that a correct society should seek to e.g. maximize individual happiness, or maximize economic output, or whatever, there are scientific arguments that would support one policy over another. And that's the key. How do you define what a 'correct' society should seek to do? What might make some people materially/'objectively' better off may also make them miserable. What makes people happier may make the world worse by encouraging people to 'waste' their lives on meaningless things (like say, virtual reality experiences). What makes most lives better might make a lot of other people happy (the utilitarian issue). Science cannot say what the goal you're trying to achieve is. That's where philosophy comes in.