slavery is the only thing you listed that would be a matter of emergent moral consensus, and there are socially beneficial reasons for that. obviously there's nothing close to a consensus on political views so I have no idea how those would relate. how does philosophy show us collectively which political views are "right"? what? it's science to observe that they do. it's science to observe that charitable donations lead to both individual and collective happiness and social harmony (if they do) and therefor deem the practice moral. where a "moral" consensus exists (all of those things are contentious on one level or another) we think we should do those things because they are objectively beneficial on some level, not because we are considering philosophical views of what is right and wrong. obviously FNC does not constantly harp on too much government welfare because of the philosophies of Jesus. they do so because (correct or not) they postulate too much welfare is objectively and empirically observably harmful to society as a whole. omg again. also double standard in how you're categorizing. the will to live longer is a matter of evolution, not philosophy. whether it's right or wrong that humans live longer is a philosophical question (because it's too vague to be scientific), but that's not an issue very many people really care about. they instinctively want to live longer and just go with that. what we DO ask is what should we do to live longer, which is overtly a scientific question.
an MD is not a scientist. i'm not familiar with this process so can't comment, but I don't see how this is relevant anyway. if there aren't enough donor hearts to go around obviously there has to be some sort of criteria for refusal. is your issue with specifics of the criteria?
Of course a doctor (MD) is a scientist. Most aren't sequestered in some laboratory somewhere doing experimental work is all. It sure looks like science when you tell them you've been running a fever, they do a blood test and make a diagnosis from the results of that test. EDIT: they sure study a lot of biology and math and technology (among other things) that are science. In any case, there is something of a battle going on between "liberal" and "conservative" ideologies. The influence of both is there to see. The ideologies aren't science based - they're philosophies. One would tax and spend, while the other (theoretically) wouldn't. No science to it. To one group, taxing is evil (bad, whatever), to the other NOT taxing is evil. Natural rights cannot be hypothesized, experimented upon, and observed. They are metaphysical things, which absolutely separates them from science. You confuse scientific method with science. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/home.aspx - Department of Philosophy, Logic, and Scientific Method. Logic is another issue, but it's also not science. As for criteria for refusal of hearts for transplant... The doctors have done enough transplants on patients and recorded the effective results of each and know to a % (odds) certainty if the patient would benefit in the "long" run. Do I have an issue with the specifics? Not exactly, but it is a question of morality, no? Someone is making the moral judgment that one year of extra life for an older person is worth less than two or more years of extra life for somebody else. It would suck to be that older person - we all want to live longer, right!
in the sense that everyone does science, yes. categorically, no. obviously there's a lot of personal philosophy that colors individual politics. the question is how do we collectively determine what the level of taxation *should* be using philosophy? isn't this what you are advocating we do in the OP? how do we collectively determine whether aborting a zygote is moral or immoral using philosophy? the bare concept of intrinsic entitlement is too vague to be scientific. if you specify WHY you are intrinsically entitled (god-given or whatever) it makes the claim at least in principal subject to observation. not sure what that means, but in any case I don't believe it's accurate to portray any kind of data collecting to support a premise as philosophy. if someone is arbitrarily deciding "worth" that would certainly be philosophy at work, not science. you seem to be faulting the wrong tool in this case.
Very good and I agree 100%. And there are many types of philosophies too. Find the one that suits your needs and use them.
We don't determine the level of taxation scientifically, that's for sure. What's even worse is they make hypotheses like "obamacare will drive down health insurance costs" then implement it and it doesn't drive down health insurance costs. Not only won't they learn from that mistake, they'll double down on it trying to make it work because of philosophy - the IDEA that health care should be universal. That IDEA being morally right to about 40% of the people. We collectively determine abortion is legal or not through the law. Not through science. In fact, the scientific reasoning behind Roe v. Wade is tortured at best. However, they reasoned and came up with an IDEA that there is a certain RIGHT (intrinsic entitlement!) to privacy in the bill of rights. You don't have to specify WHY you have natural rights. You just do. They are metaphysical things. Concepts. Ideas. Things that have no foundation in or requirement for science. We all share the experience to know they exist. We can't measure it with our senses or any testing equipment; and human testimony is very weak evidence. Yet it is widely accepted as truth. You still confuse scientific method with science proper. Any kind of data collecting isn't science. Any kind of hypothesis testing isn't science either. Some testing is, some isn't. They're using "science" as the tool to determine moral judgment. Like I said, it's unfair to the older person who has his life cut short. I was pretty explicit about (some of) the odds and observations they made to come to their morality. And an MD absolutely is a scientist. If the two aspirin don't work on your headache, go back and get something stronger. That's a scientific experiment in action.
"but you have to rule by some other means. Philosophy" finding a personal philosophy that suits your needs is a different thing than government trying to use philosophy to determine what laws should be.
A lawyer and judge are forms of philosophy. That's why the death penalty is practiced in some states and not in others. That's why some people get more state tax than others. That's why certain laws are passed and some aren't. The judges and people residing in those territories make the rules and use their own philosophy to decide what is right and wrong. Your argument with Denny is not valid, IMO.
whether we do or not is irrelevant. in the OP you're saying we're better off if we don't - and I don't get why. seems like you're completely contradicting your OP here - pointing out that the Obama administration is basing policy too much on philosophy to the detriment of society when they should be more empirically minded. lost me. the bare notion of an intrinsic "right" is a completely and utterly vague concept. it's no mystery why humans don't want to be murdered, would rather be free than slaves etc. that's just evolution. what we WANT for ourselves colors what we feel we should be entitled to. nothing wrong with that, but that is not the same thing as saying we are born with an intrinsic right to those things. without external context that statement simply has no real meaning. in order to do that they'd first have to specify the (philosophical) rule that more life is better than less life, no matter who's life it is. they're using science to carry out a philosophical judgment. philosophy is determining morality in this case, not science. we all do this type of stuff every day so you're just saying we're all scientists.
Denny made a claim about the way things should be, not the way they are. I'm pointing out that the things we as a collective tend to agree on are driven by science. The things we don't agree on are driven by philosophy. Why is philosophy a better course?
I think science is too black and white. There are situations when someone may have broken the law: but the perception of the law enforcement agency just looked the other way, Think of it like the guy that has a dime bag if weed for his personal use and a cop takes him to jail. He broke the law, but should he really go to jail and have his life ruined by it? Science says yes, philosophy says "what intent, will it help?"
Science does not say yes, it does not say no. Science simply informs. Philosophy applies value to that information and creates the yes or no. I have no idea how you are thinking that science says "yes" in this case, please explain.
It says a lot. It's a tool; just like you pointed out. A firearm is a tool. That tool can be used by one to kill for bad and others to protect. A psychiatrist can use science as a tool as well; but in the end; help is made by the philosophical approach.
help is made by the spread of observation-driven common sense. people who are changing their views on this issue aren't all having simultaneous philosophical revelations.
If you're really interested in science and how it ties in with morality, read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. Harris has a degree in philosophy and a Ph.D in neuroscience, so he has an interesting twist on things; it really makes you think.
Why is philosophy a better choice? Because Democrats tend to SHARE a very similar philosophy with one another. It shapes the policies they push. Same is true for Republicans. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with living a fulfilling life. Science in no way shape or form tells us that slavery is evil. Philosophy does. Science in no way shape or form tells us that it's bad to (medically/surgically, etc/) experiment on live human beings. Philosophy tells us it is bad. Though some philosophy (Nazis) might find it not bad. Science in no way shape or form tells us we should form a more perfect union. Philosophy does. Science in no way shape or form tells us we shouldn't launch missiles at London like the Nazis did. But the Nazi scientists did their job and made the rockets. It's not about those scientists being bad guys - the science led to where it led. The philosophers in charge abused their work product. &c.
call it what you want. common sense is result of evolved instinct and experience. no philosophy involved.
so did the Nazis when and where it does, each tends to view the other side's philosophy as misguided, and relying on philosophical considerations ends up being divisive. one could say our current two party system is "evil" : ) false dichotomy. science and philosophy are both tools we use to achieve fulfilling lives. the term evil is too vague to be meaningful without context. science certainly has a lot to say about the negative social implications of slavery. as with slavery science has a lot to say about negative social/psychological implications of living in a world where experimenting on live humans was allowed. otherwise without external context "bad" is just a vague, undefined term similar to evil. "should" (and perfect) are the vague, meaningless terms here. if you define what you specifically mean by those this statement becomes a hypothesis supportable by science. vague = "shouldn't". obviously there are empirical reasons we shouldn't start wars if we value our own life and well being. you could say that our valuation of those things is "philosophical", but as previously harped on it is also driven by evolution so it's not all that simple. this premise of this thread seems a bit incoherent. it's obvious science plays a big part in determining moral consensus and will continue to do so, so i'm not sure what you're actually arguing for. I know you have a huge issue with the actions of individual scientists and what you think is a broken system driven more by funding than seeking beneficial research, but that has nothing to do with the actual usefulness of science itself in determining how we can fulfill whatever goals we have.
