3 ms·

Not just the Vietnam war, but a lot of political questions aren't really scientific. We can of course use science as (often good) argumentation, but fundamental

Not just the Vietnam war, but a lot of political questions aren't really scientific. We can of course use science as (often good) argumentation, but fundamentally many political topics aren't scientific questions. A simple example would be to say that extra policing of certain ethnic groups would reduce crime rates. Purely empirically this might be correct, but there is a broad consensus that this is also morally wrong.

zozbot234 5y ago
> A simple example would be to say that extra policing of certain ethnic groups would reduce crime rates. Purely empirically this might be correct, but there is a broad consensus that this is also morally wrong. Historically, the solution to that conundrum would be for each ethnic group to be responsible for policing their own. We still see traces of this in the modern notion that due process requires a trial by "a jury of one's peers". Someone's "peers" back then would've been not just any fellow citizens, but people actually sharing the same general background as the accused. Disputes between groups would've been solved peaceably, through monetary restitution and the paying of damages; but punishment was strictly an internal matter.
zdragnar 5y ago
Not only are such questions not scientific, but they use the same words with different meanings. This is why it is important to be clear when communicating. Morally wrong is to be opposed to what is good and virtuous. Scientifically wrong is to be demonstrably false. To your last point, it gets more interesting when the topic is "Increased police presence is necessary in geographic areas experiencing high crime rates" What does necessary mean here? What does" right" or "wrong" mean in the context of this situation? Does right or wrong change with the nature of the crimes being committed, or the nature of the people committing the crimes, or the nature of the victims? Is it right to not increasing police presence because the perpetrators are predominantly of one race, even if the victims are also of that race, as are the police themselves? How do you achieve consensus- empirically or otherwise- on such a simple statement when no two people may be using the same words the same way?

zozbot234 5y ago

> A simple example would be to say that extra policing of certain ethnic groups would reduce crime rates. Purely empirically this might be correct, but there is a broad consensus that this is also morally wrong. Historically, the solution to that conundrum would be for each ethnic group to be responsible for policing their own. We still see traces of this in the modern notion that due process requires a trial by "a jury of one's peers". Someone's "peers" back then would've been not just any fellow citizens, but people actually sharing the same general background as the accused. Disputes between groups would've been solved peaceably, through monetary restitution and the paying of damages; but punishment was strictly an internal matter.

zdragnar 5y ago

Not only are such questions not scientific, but they use the same words with different meanings. This is why it is important to be clear when communicating. Morally wrong is to be opposed to what is good and virtuous. Scientifically wrong is to be demonstrably false. To your last point, it gets more interesting when the topic is "Increased police presence is necessary in geographic areas experiencing high crime rates" What does necessary mean here? What does" right" or "wrong" mean in the context of this situation? Does right or wrong change with the nature of the crimes being committed, or the nature of the people committing the crimes, or the nature of the victims? Is it right to not increasing police presence because the perpetrators are predominantly of one race, even if the victims are also of that race, as are the police themselves? How do you achieve consensus- empirically or otherwise- on such a simple statement when no two people may be using the same words the same way?