The critic says it is ethics, but isn't ethics the philosophical inquiry of morality.
Is it science? Well what is science? Is science something that follows the scientific method to achieve its answers?
If so, then no ethical issue is a scientific issue.
Perhaps that is a bold claim?
Perhaps I should say that ethical issues don't necessarily use or not use the scientific method in order to reach a product.
However what does that say? Nothing.
It is a sketch of an answer, but not an answer at all.
The former claim is a definite answer, something in which other conditions can be built or dismissed. Whether it is wrong or not should not hinge on circumstantial cases or isolated incidents, but in a disapproval of the universal notion that an ethical issue is inherently different from a scientific issue due to the ways we process and solve each respective subject’s problems.
So now we are back to the separation of ethics and science.
So obviously ethics must be philosophy then?
Bravo! And the crowd goes wild!
But isn't our modern idea of science and the scientific method the bastard child of Aristotle's idea of Empiricism?
Perhaps you do not buy into the western birth of Empiricism.
Of course not, ethnocentrism is a comforting blanket in which we hide from the cold of actually discussing issues.
But where do you say it originated?
The only other place had to be the Muslims!
No! The Egyptians!
Yes; quite, now we may all rejoice!
But what is the difference?
Are we to actually conclude that within these theocracies the pervading religious philosophy was not entwined into their idea of Empiricism? Also, isn't a theocracy a governmental system based on a philosophy of an absolute?
Only a fool would think such a thing, and I have faith this article will not reach the eyes of those.
So science is indeed a peg leg of philosophy!
Is science an act concerned with knowing?
Is philosophy an act concerned with knowing?
Hopefully! For philosophy without implementation is no better than science without experiments. Individuals who chatter but put forth no systems are critics, not philosophers.
What do you say?
That is not the nature of philosophy?
If philosophy is about knowing, the primary objective should not be to simply come across an issue and think about it. If it is an unknown object, we learn about its characteristics, if it is a problem we solve it, if it is a hole in a system then we correct the system, or suggest a better one.
While one could surely suggest other examples, could anyone suggest none?
Can anyone suggest that this is absolutely not the case?
Anyone who did would fully realize my condemnation as a critic.
Or perhaps you like the term skeptic?
Its connotation is not nearly as nasty, but its phenotype is just the same.
Philosophy and Science are both about knowing.
Do we agree that they both apply a methodical approach based on logic to come to a conclusion?
It is inherent in the definition of both these subjects that all proceedings must be coated in the vomit of logic.
Do we agree that due to the fact that the human brain engages in hierarchical thinking to garner ideas, that all logic is methodical?
Do science and philosophy both engage in experimentation?
Perhaps. Not all science can be tested, similarly not all philosophies can undergo such a procedure. Easy examples of experimentation in both include everything from gravity to the communist revolution. Similarly, examples of things that cannot be tested include certain Quantum Mechanical theories and a few Frenchmen babbling about not existing.
So the purpose and process of scientific and philosophical inquiry are the same?
They are indeed!
Then the elephant in the room is…Why are the results so different?
Why do scientist generally deal with X and philosophers with Y?
Is it down to personal preference?
Is it because society says they should?
Is this an argument against semantics?
Early philosophers, such as Aristotle, made no differentiation between using logic to conclude details about X, and using reason to conclude details about Y.
This means at some point society decided to break the two apart, but for what reason?
Well because one is valued over the other.
Science is put on a pedestal, while philosophy is regulated to the same plane as tabloid articles.
Why is actually easy!
Because science delivers results, and philosophy tends not to.
Because science does not require one to think qualitatively, but only quantitatively.
Because science is in that respect easy, as although logic and critical thinking are at hand, definite numerical results can be acquired, and no one ACTUALLY has to make a decision!
How great that we have come up with a system that runs itself!
Does it even need us at all asks the critic?
If we are in the business of simply saying that red is red, then why are we constantly congratulating ourselves?
Is it because you have a long winded speech about why red is red?
Is it because you now can make yellow red, and red yellow, and brown purple?
What the lady in the pink skirt wants to know is does her red purse match her pink dress.
You couldn't answer though, you were too busy being a scientist.
Similarly, the philosopher wasn't even there to see her; he was too busy writing a critique on how color is just an illusion anyway!
A conclusion is both qualitative and quantitative!
We create governmental systems based on qualitative philosophies, such as capitalism, with the hope that competition is what is RIGHT.
Unfortunately, we then betray our original intention and create fake financial bubbles based on quantitative information so we can pass fake legislation in order to sustain something that is WRONG.
And does anyone ask what effect this will have on the people, planet, or our souls?
The philosopher and the scientist do!
But the philosopher is too busy seeing all 7 sides of the square.
Similarly, the scientist could not possibly solve the problem, for it is a "social" problem, and not a scientific one.
And society does not contain scientists whatsoever, so social problems do not affect them!
But let us remember that science is society's answer!
It is the objective truth; despite only telling one side of the story!
Not philosophy however!
Philosophy is subjective, which is a trait only acquired by women.
Philosophy requires too much thinking, and complexity is directly correlated with failure.
But not science!
Science, with its objectivity, is entirely too manly to fall to such depths!
Because men don't have feelings, mind you, and anyone who does is foolish.
But did we not conclude that philosophy and science are the same?
Were they not only torn apart by society for contestable causes?
Does not a painting look better through two eyes than one?
Not only that, but is not a painting made to be looked at by two eyes?
When your optometrist asks you to cover one eye, is it not to designate a handicap?
I would be opposed to the view that he is simply trying to see if you NEED the other one!
So, why do we value one eye over the other?
Just because society says so?
If we are in agreement and we are all logical human beings, then what we decide is universally logical.
Do the masses not dictate reality?
Do the masses not dictate society?
A time of clarity is two eyes away.