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.
With that said, Boyd states that scientific realism is probably true. He also argues that scientific realism and moral realism work very similarly which must mean that moral realism is also probably true. That in itself tells readers that morality must be approached openly to know of its existence.
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.
To put that in context, it can be said that morality is pretty much like the atom in its early days. Everyone knows it is there and everyone knew that it is integral to the growth of society, but nobody could ever prove that it is there because it cannot be seen. This is why Boyd says that it may be possible that there could be moral entities that can help shape its existence.
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.
With that said, Boyd states that scientific realism is probably true. He also argues that scientific realism and moral realism work very similarly which must mean that moral realism is also probably true. That in itself tells readers that morality must be approached openly to know of its existence.
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.
To put that in context, it can be said that morality is pretty much like the atom in its early days. Everyone knows it is there and everyone knew that it is integral to the growth of society, but nobody could ever prove that it is there because it cannot be seen. This is why Boyd says that it may be possible that there could be moral entities that can help shape its existence.
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment