Most people see morals as the innate ability to know what is wrong and right while others see morality as rules that were artificially set up by the big leaders in society to incorporate peace and order. One of the more interesting philosophies regarding morality is the Boydian philosophy. This one establishes that morality does exist and tries to explain it from a scientific point of view.
Richard Boyd explains this concept through his belief that scientific realism itself is true. The principle of morality in the Boydian point of view is that moral realism and scientific realism are actually very similar. Because of their similarity, they can be compared with each other with one being able to prove that the other is true.
The basic premise of Boyd is very simple. He states that scientific realism is most likely true. If scientific realism is most likely true, then moral realism is also most likely true since they are in a very similar context.
Something as small as an atom, for instance, is there in theory but could never be seen nor heard. However, scientists still used the concept of an atom because atoms filled in the missing piece of what would be the building blocks of all things. It was only years later that scientists were able to observe the atom through an atom microscope that was created.
While Boyd does not really aim to trump anti moral realists, his claim is that there is definitely evidence of the existence of moral realism. He questions what moral realism evidence would look or feel like if morality could somehow be discovered and observed through the naked eye. His claim is to be open minded moral realists that should see how moral realism could prove to be a positive argument.
Going back to scientific realism, science is mostly just about creating theories and proving them through experimentation, evidence gathering, and other methods of coming up with proof to back up the theory. Now, the thing about scientific entities is that it fills in certain gaps that most people would find hard to explain, such as the atom or germs for that matter. They do work which means they do exist but they must only be proven by scientific evidence before they become scientific truth.
This is why Boyd always questions what evidence of morality would look like because there is not any visible evidence. It is also a question of how would people experiment to get the evidence of moral realism in society. After all, it was established earlier that morality is there and just needs to be proven through the same scientific process. The process of proving it though, is another story.
So in order to approach morality from that kind of perspective, it is important to first understand how similar it is to scientific realism. By relating moral realism to scientific realism, one can establish a connection between the two and how they are approached. From there, one can understand how moral realism may exist and must be found by people.
Richard Boyd explains this concept through his belief that scientific realism itself is true. The principle of morality in the Boydian point of view is that moral realism and scientific realism are actually very similar. Because of their similarity, they can be compared with each other with one being able to prove that the other is true.
The basic premise of Boyd is very simple. He states that scientific realism is most likely true. If scientific realism is most likely true, then moral realism is also most likely true since they are in a very similar context.
Something as small as an atom, for instance, is there in theory but could never be seen nor heard. However, scientists still used the concept of an atom because atoms filled in the missing piece of what would be the building blocks of all things. It was only years later that scientists were able to observe the atom through an atom microscope that was created.
While Boyd does not really aim to trump anti moral realists, his claim is that there is definitely evidence of the existence of moral realism. He questions what moral realism evidence would look or feel like if morality could somehow be discovered and observed through the naked eye. His claim is to be open minded moral realists that should see how moral realism could prove to be a positive argument.
Going back to scientific realism, science is mostly just about creating theories and proving them through experimentation, evidence gathering, and other methods of coming up with proof to back up the theory. Now, the thing about scientific entities is that it fills in certain gaps that most people would find hard to explain, such as the atom or germs for that matter. They do work which means they do exist but they must only be proven by scientific evidence before they become scientific truth.
This is why Boyd always questions what evidence of morality would look like because there is not any visible evidence. It is also a question of how would people experiment to get the evidence of moral realism in society. After all, it was established earlier that morality is there and just needs to be proven through the same scientific process. The process of proving it though, is another story.
So in order to approach morality from that kind of perspective, it is important to first understand how similar it is to scientific realism. By relating moral realism to scientific realism, one can establish a connection between the two and how they are approached. From there, one can understand how moral realism may exist and must be found by people.
About the Author:
If you are looking for information about Boydian philosophy, come to our web pages today. More details are available at http://www.genwars-fmfm1.com now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment