Me: I do not see how science contributes to ethics
Obvious Leo:
This is a foolish reductionist statement and representative of the scourge of our times...
No scientist can make our ethical decisions for us but to suggest that we can make them in the absence of empirical knowledge of our biological selves is the sort of statement that makes the natural philosopher puke. If you wish to stand by this statement I have nothing further to contribute to this discussion. If you wish to modify it please do so in a way which makes your meaning clear.
It is hard to respond because, although you vividly describe your emotional state, you do not make your actual objection clear. What do you mean by '
knowledge of our biological selves'?
Does '
biological self' refer to how we think, in the sense of what might be 'hard wired'? If so, then if something was really 'hard wired' we will act automatically and since we don't make a conscious choice we would not be aware of it as an ethical issue.
But if we are aware that we might be wired to act in a particular way, that knowledge also gives us the option of not acting that way.
For example, if it really was 'natural' for men to rape women, we would simply do it and not see it as an ethical issue. But we are not that way; we are aware that it is a matter of choice therefore ethical considerations apply. Even if a scientist pointed out that the urge to rape might be a function of male hormones, that would not alter the ethics of rape because we would still know that we had this ability to choose.
(If we judge an agency does not have this awareness for some reason (non-human, very young, mental impairment, etc.) then we do not interpret
their behaviour as involving moral choice. But that never applies to our own behaviour - I cannot both be aware of a choice - and also deny that I have a choice.)
If that is not what you meant by '
knowledge of our biological selves' - perhaps you mean instead we can derive an '
ought' from an '
is'? - you will have to explain. Hopefully, in philosophical langauge.
Belinda
Science explains how the foetus develops from an egg and a sperm to a morula and intermediate stages. Science also explains how a foetus can be viable at six months , and what the chances and technology are for a very premature baby to be healthy.
I do not see how this bears on abortion. Both sides can agree about the science of how an embryo develops, but one thinks the rights of the embryo trump any right of choice by the mother, and the other side thinks the reverse. There is no scientific experiment which will show which side is correct.
Regarding thinking for ourselves, the author of Pride and Prejudice can be accused of thinking within the box of the ruling class in England at a particular time.
I am reluctant to judge anyone for thinking within the box. I think we are always aware of other people's boxes; never our own!
As to how much Austen represents her age, her almost exact contemporary was the vastly more successful Sir Walter Scott. If we want a notion of what the reading classes liked we need to read '
Waverley' or '
Heart of Midlothian'. Yet today, who is the more read author? 'Janeites' would surely claim this as evidence that Austen's box was bigger than those small worlds described in her plots.