Abstract
It is commonly recognised that the question of the relation of science to ethics has been a troubled one, especially in the 20th century. There is an interesting history to the question. Scientists have occasionally attempted to legislate for ethics. They thought to determine morality from their biological results — for example, their conclusions about human evolution. Or else, they offered lists of instincts or needs out of which they expected a conception of the good to be constructed. They framed concepts of mental health to serve as a basis for morals, or attempted to apply to moral inquiry the latest model from the latest science. Philosophers reacted with emphasis, often with impatience. They attempted to establish and maintain a concept of moral autonomy which would free them from an incipiently authoritarian science as it had freed them from an authoritarian religion. Sometimes they fell instead into the clutches of an authoritarian linguistics, and they confused autonomy with isolation. Many philosophers felt that the whole question had really been settled when G. E. Moore worked out the idea of the naturalistic fallacy in his Principia Ethica at the beginning of the century, and separated the moral sphere from the natural sphere; in one form or another, it has won assent in the analytic world. In more popular vein, and among perhaps most scientists, it has seemed enough to say ‘Science can give us only means, not ends.’
In revising this paper, the writer is generally indebted for critical suggestions to Professors John Ladd and Ruth Putnam. The latter’s comments on the treatment of G.E. Moore were especially helpful.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Moore’s principle of organic unities denies that we can go directly from the value of the parts of a whole - each evaluated separately (that is, as a whole) - to the value of the whole with them as parts. In short, every complex has to undergo the isolation test itself.
It is worth stressing again that given the permanent possibility of evaluation, there is no limit to which this questioning of the functions of morals may not go. In theory, even the whole of morality as a human institution may be put on the scales and found wanting, if all the functions suggested for it can be carried out better in other ways or through other human agencies. (Morality might then cling to a place in the criteria of ‘better’ in such investigation - apart from the separate questions of intrinsic value.)
Cf. Abraham Edel, Method in Ethical Theory, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1963.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1969 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Edel, A., Putnam, R.A., Ladd, J. (1969). Patterns of Use of Science in Ethics. In: Cohen, R.S., Wartofsky, M.W. (eds) Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science 1966/1968. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3378-7_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3378-7_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-3380-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-3378-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive