In my
previous post, I started out by saying, "my explicit thought about moral philosophy is indebted to fellow blogger
The Barefoot Bum." Larry, the Barefoot Bum had
a response on his blog. I pull out a couple quotes:
Utilitarianism first rests on four more-or-less scientific principles:
- People directly experience "happiness" and "suffering"; they're
hard to define precisely, but we know them when we feel them. Happiness
is intrinsically good, and suffering is intrinsically bad.
- People are goal-seeking, which differs from other possible
high-level cognitive strategies such as rule-following; (what Daniel
Dennett calls sphexishness).
- People generally create and act on the goal of maximizing their own happiness and minimizing their own suffering.
- People have evolved to be social, and we have evolved the tendency
to feel our own happiness when (some) others are happy, and feel our own
suffering when (some) others suffer.
None of these scientific principles entail any particular ethical system. Utilitarianism thus must add an ethical ideology to these principles.
Utilitarianism does not describe how the world actually is. It is
a framework that people chooses or does not choose to evaluate their
actions. The "reductionism" just happens to be part of the theory; as a
proponent of utilitarianism, I would not say that utilitarianism is true
because it is reductionist. (Indeed, I would not say that
utilitarianism is true. Full stop.) Reductionism just serves to make the
theory easier to use.
The idea, however, that we know physics is true, that it really describes the world, because
it is reductionist is very philosophically problematic. There's no
denying that reductionism is a really useful tool in physics, but the
connection between reductionism and truth seems very hard to justify.
I have no response except simply that I agree.
0 comments:
Post a Comment