4 ms·

>it cannot answer the question of morality Sure it can, moral realists make empirical claims. Science can test them.

• woodruffw 10y ago
  How do you test the claim that murder is wrong, or that happiness is the chief human good?
  • JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    I think "Hm. Would I like to be murdered? Do I like to be happy?" And I answer. Its a simple question to a biological entity, easily answered. Maybe a survey, or even a lie-detector while taking a quiz, or hey! even murder a few people and see how they like it.
    • woodruffw 10y ago
      You've answered questions about yourself, not questions about the acts or principles themselves. You may not like to be murdered, but someone who is terminally ill and suffering might. Is it okay to murder them then, even if they can't explicitly ask you to? Should I murder one person to save five? What about four, three, or two? What about one to save a more "important" person? What about children? You may like to be happy, but what is happiness? Is it simple pleasure, or is that too "piggish"? Is it a flourishing life? Is it egoistic? Can your happiness be said to be "right" if it makes others unhappy? I am skeptical that any scientific inquiry can ever provide compelling (i.e., consistent and universalizable) answers to these questions. That's not because scientific inquiry is flawed, but because they're just not scientific questions -- they require a different toolbox.