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.
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.
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.
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.
His principle states that scientific realism delves in tackling the so called unknown and labeling them. For many years, scientific theories and principles have worked for people which is why they are followed and used to prove some truths. It is only later on that full scientific evidence can prove the existence of scientific entities and could solidify some theories as 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.
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.
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.
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.
His principle states that scientific realism delves in tackling the so called unknown and labeling them. For many years, scientific theories and principles have worked for people which is why they are followed and used to prove some truths. It is only later on that full scientific evidence can prove the existence of scientific entities and could solidify some theories as 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.
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