Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Science and human morality

Expand Messages
  • PaintedDevil@aol.com
    In a message dated 7/2/2002 10:18:00 AM GMT Daylight Time, ... Your explanation for why she is traunatised is (a) psychological and (b) scientific. ... Does
    Message 1 of 55 , Jul 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 7/2/2002 10:18:00 AM GMT Daylight Time,
      iambiguously@... writes:


      > Imagine a young girl has just found out she is
      > pregnant. She is traumatized because, among other
      > things, she is convinced her family will be incensed
      > by this and she, herself, has doubts about the
      > morality of abortion. Now, she goes to both a medical
      > doctor to discuss what is involved in receiving an
      > abortion and she goes to a psychiatrist for advice on
      > her psychological trauma.
      >
      Your explanation for why she is traunatised is (a) psychological and (b)
      scientific.

      > Which one is the scientist?
      >
      > They don't call the social sciences [of which
      > psychology is one] the "soft" sciences for nothing. It
      > is not really a science at all, in my opionion,
      > because it is far too embedded in culture, in "the
      > times", in profoundly prejudicial assumptions about
      > what constitutes a "rational" psychological frame of
      > mind.

      Does this make it *impossible* for psychology to be a science, by definition,
      or is it just very difficult because there is so much complexity and noise in
      the system?

      Charles


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • PaintedDevil@aol.com
      In a message dated 7/11/2002 10:28:37 AM GMT Daylight Time, ... There s a difference between theories and meta theories . Elliot s moral theory is (in part) a
      Message 55 of 55 , Jul 11, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 7/11/2002 10:28:37 AM GMT Daylight Time,
        brian.scurfield@... writes:


        > These are good points, but aren't both of you arguing in favour of moral
        > theories that you think to be true? First, you are arguing that it is wrong
        > to apply science in domains such as morality and ethics, and overriding this
        > is the moral theory that totalitarianism is wrong. The latter theory has
        > been invoked repeatedly by those arguing for and against Elliot, so it would
        > seem to me that this theory is an approximation to a moral truth? And is it
        > not sensible to test this theory by trying to refute it?
        >

        There's a difference between theories and "meta theories". Elliot's moral
        theory is (in part) a meta theory - a theory about theories of morality.
        There are lots of meta theories of morality - moral relativism is one - and
        one of these is no doubt true.

        Charles


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.