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.
The person behind this philosophical body of thought is the philosopher Richard Boyd. Boyd is an avid believer in the existence of scientific realism. He is also a believer of moral realism because he believes that the two are actually very similar in the way that they are treated by people and how they are found to be true.
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.
Take for example, the presence of atoms as the building blocks of everything. Scientists believed in the presence of atoms even though they couldn't be seen, felt, heard, tasted, or smelled. Later on, scientists then were able to create an atom microscope and then were able to observe atoms and how they moved using this brand new piece of technology.
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.
Going back to scientific realism, science is mostly just about creating theories and proving them through experimentation, evidence gathering, and other methods of coming up with proof to back up the theory. Now, the thing about scientific entities is that it fills in certain gaps that most people would find hard to explain, such as the atom or germs for that matter. They do work which means they do exist but they must only be proven by scientific evidence before they become scientific truth.
In that sense, there is a possibility that a moral entity exists, just like how scientific entities also do exist. The reason to believe that is because morality is already working for the society and has already been an embedded part of people for many decades. However, it is really hard to prove or measure its existence because it is really hard to see or observe them the same way germs can be observed. This does not mean it is not there though.
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.
The person behind this philosophical body of thought is the philosopher Richard Boyd. Boyd is an avid believer in the existence of scientific realism. He is also a believer of moral realism because he believes that the two are actually very similar in the way that they are treated by people and how they are found to be true.
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.
Take for example, the presence of atoms as the building blocks of everything. Scientists believed in the presence of atoms even though they couldn't be seen, felt, heard, tasted, or smelled. Later on, scientists then were able to create an atom microscope and then were able to observe atoms and how they moved using this brand new piece of technology.
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.
Going back to scientific realism, science is mostly just about creating theories and proving them through experimentation, evidence gathering, and other methods of coming up with proof to back up the theory. Now, the thing about scientific entities is that it fills in certain gaps that most people would find hard to explain, such as the atom or germs for that matter. They do work which means they do exist but they must only be proven by scientific evidence before they become scientific truth.
In that sense, there is a possibility that a moral entity exists, just like how scientific entities also do exist. The reason to believe that is because morality is already working for the society and has already been an embedded part of people for many decades. However, it is really hard to prove or measure its existence because it is really hard to see or observe them the same way germs can be observed. This does not mean it is not there though.
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