For many years, philosophers have tried to understand the role of ethics and morals in society whether or not morals are actually there or not. While others argue that it is already there and people just have to discover it, others state that morals are just made up by society. Such a philosophy that supports the former is known as the Boydian philosophy.
This philosophical field is based on the arguments of scientific realism of philosopher Richard Boyd. According to Boyd, moral realism is very similar to scientific realism in a sense that science has already existed for many years and has just been given a label and explored. Similarly, humans already have an inborn sense of what is good and bad and should just be explored.
Boyd follows the logic that if scientific realism is probably true, then moral realism must also probably be true too. So with that statement, Boyd actually concludes that moral realism is probably true. He bases this on the analogy that they are very similar in context.
Take for example, the presence of atoms as the building blocks of everything. Scientists believed in the presence of atoms even though they couldn't be seen, felt, heard, tasted, or smelled. Later on, scientists then were able to create an atom microscope and then were able to observe atoms and how they moved using this brand new piece of technology.
Boyd puts morality in the same light as scientific entities which could be theorized to exist but have to be discovered. Of course, his argument is by no means a way to discount anti moral realism. It is more for the purpose of looking at morality with an open mind and discussing how it is possible to argue moral realism.
Now, according to the theory and experiment based approach of the scientific method, a scientific concept is first created with a hypothesis then a theory. The next step is to create experiments and try to gather as much evidence there is to try and prove the theory correct. If the theory has been proven to be correct, then it will evidently become a truth.
In some way, moral realism is the same because the presence of morality has helped shape society to what it is. There may or may not be proof that such moral entities exist but morality, nevertheless, is there and has been evidently at work with people. That is why the argument here is that people, when they are born, will be delved into a world of morals where they will experience these morals and use them for everyday life. The only thing left to do is try to see how to measure and observe the activity of morals.
Basically, this is what Boyd is trying to point out when he argues about morality. As there is no evidence discounting it, it is really open for debate as to whether it exists or not. However, Boyd toys with the idea that if scientific realism is real, then moral realism must be real too.
This philosophical field is based on the arguments of scientific realism of philosopher Richard Boyd. According to Boyd, moral realism is very similar to scientific realism in a sense that science has already existed for many years and has just been given a label and explored. Similarly, humans already have an inborn sense of what is good and bad and should just be explored.
Boyd follows the logic that if scientific realism is probably true, then moral realism must also probably be true too. So with that statement, Boyd actually concludes that moral realism is probably true. He bases this on the analogy that they are very similar in context.
Take for example, the presence of atoms as the building blocks of everything. Scientists believed in the presence of atoms even though they couldn't be seen, felt, heard, tasted, or smelled. Later on, scientists then were able to create an atom microscope and then were able to observe atoms and how they moved using this brand new piece of technology.
Boyd puts morality in the same light as scientific entities which could be theorized to exist but have to be discovered. Of course, his argument is by no means a way to discount anti moral realism. It is more for the purpose of looking at morality with an open mind and discussing how it is possible to argue moral realism.
Now, according to the theory and experiment based approach of the scientific method, a scientific concept is first created with a hypothesis then a theory. The next step is to create experiments and try to gather as much evidence there is to try and prove the theory correct. If the theory has been proven to be correct, then it will evidently become a truth.
In some way, moral realism is the same because the presence of morality has helped shape society to what it is. There may or may not be proof that such moral entities exist but morality, nevertheless, is there and has been evidently at work with people. That is why the argument here is that people, when they are born, will be delved into a world of morals where they will experience these morals and use them for everyday life. The only thing left to do is try to see how to measure and observe the activity of morals.
Basically, this is what Boyd is trying to point out when he argues about morality. As there is no evidence discounting it, it is really open for debate as to whether it exists or not. However, Boyd toys with the idea that if scientific realism is real, then moral realism must be real too.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment