Why would a philosophy major would have better ethics than my, for instance?
Ethics are greatly influenced by so many aspects different to whatever career someone chose to study.
And we could cut the middleman just voting and electing people with the same ethical values as me. It would be a piss off democracy if I chose a representantive who campaigned for painting all buses blue because I share that view just for some unelected person coming to say “no that’s not ethical you shall not do that”.
Ethics of a society emerge from the society, not from a few individuals. Every person have a set of values and in democracies we chose what are the government positions on those values by voting. I think moral lobbing by a few selected individuals would be bad, no matter if priest of philosophy majors.
I only consider science those fields that can describe nature and assert this depiction of nature vie repeatable experiments. Thus I don’t agree on philosophy being a science.
I algo don’t agree that a professional would have better morals than me. Due the personal nature of what morality is.
Imagine I say my morals are the best, how is any professional philosopher to prove me wrong? It’s not possible. But if I say that “climate change is not real” a lot of climate scientist could show me evidence and offer me a set of experiments to undoubtedly prove me wrong.
I actually have. And I have read a LOT and I mean a LOT of philosophy.
All the great philosophers of history to begin with. I have read all their most famous works. And I have enjoyed them. I think they are great read. But great LITERATURE read. Not scientific reads.
I still think they are not science, as they do not describe nature. They just give opinions on several matters. And the few who dared to make any predictions about the future failed miserably.
If they are science they should be able to do predictions about nature. To propose experiments that are proven true. They should be falsable if proven untrue.
And just for the record, I have also read the full Bible. It’s also a great piece of literature, but it obviously doesn’t depict the reality of nature as a product of the scientific method.
And just to make a point, just because some old guy you got impressed by told you something is true, doesn’t make it true. Take this last sentence as you wish.
Applied ethics is not ‘what feels like it would be the most correct thing to do?’, it’s writing professional codes of conduct, establishing criteria for who should be allowed to get an organ transplant, who should be considered for parole, what scientific experiments should be allowed to happen, if I listed everything affected by the study of ethics I’d be here all day.
I don’t want a random schmuck who’s never thought about any of this for more than 5 minutes writing any of that, and I sure as shit don’t want people voting on it. That’s how you end up with abortion bans.
You’re pretty sure based on what? Even self-proclaimed pro-life philosophers admit their position is rare. Ethics itself easily argues in favor of abortion but not against it, which is one reason it’s available in virtually every secular state.
You are starting from your conclusion (philosophy isn’t worth funding) and working backwards to make that fit any new evidence presented to you.
Not really. I’m just presenting arguments I have always had about philosophy not being a science.
Even if rare, not a single philosopher could make an experiment or present me a scientific theory that would prove that abortion is right or wrong. So the opinion of a single philosopher is as good as any other, and as good as mine for this matter.
Most modern philosophers are left wing, so yes, most philosophers would agree that left-wing morals are right, and that would present an opportunity for left-wing people to say that global morality should be decided by philosophers. I’m left wing myself but I’m against tricks and lies, even if they “benefit the cause”. And even if considering philosophers the moral light of our society would benefit me (as I mainly agree on most modern philosophers views) I personally consider it to be a false statement.
The not funding thing is on the air, yet. I’m just convinced is not a science, is more like literature and other forms of personal expression. And for me the argument would be founding all equally or none. And of course I don’t agree on giving any philosopher a position of authority on morals “just” for being a philosopher in the same way I would give a scientist an authority position in science just for being a scientist (once again, because the whole thing of science is that it’s subjected to experiments and falsifiability.
I don’t even want to diss philosophers. I enjoy reading philosophy a lot. But just as I enjoy reading any other kind of literature. I have respect for Liu Cixin (for instance) but I wouldn’t give him an special position in telling people what to do just because he writes good books that make you think.
And now you’ve moved your goalposts; first it was ‘convince me philosophy deserves government funding,’ now it’s ’philosophy isn’t a hard science and can’t show me on a graph why abortion is wrong’.
If you just don’t like the humanities receiving government funds, just say so instead of doing this song and dance about how it’s really about science and equality.
I literally wrote “I have a hard time understanding why we should fund philosophy studies with government money.”.
If you do a bias interpretation on that in your search for an enemy is on you.
I don’t write here trying to achieve any goal. I’m not a partisan not a propagandists.
My only goal, as suggested from the original comment was to know other people’s opinion a debate a little on that.
And I’m not even American, so I don’t really have much stakes on that the US government does or stop doing with their fundings.
As I have already said, it’s not that I don’t like humanities being funded. I don’t like them being treated as sciences, when they are not. I would support a humanities funding that would consists in a more democratic and spread funding that would allow to any member of the society to work on their humanities if they want. For instance funding for anyone self publishing a book on any matter (philosophy or fiction), building national archives and forums for this humanities to coexist.
But funding a philosophy department with a few elite philosophers who are getting a lot of money to do some philoshophing is just wrong from my pov. I could be convinced otherwise if a good argument is presented, but as far as it goes it has not been presented such argument.
Why would a philosophy major would have better ethics than my, for instance?
Ethics are greatly influenced by so many aspects different to whatever career someone chose to study.
And we could cut the middleman just voting and electing people with the same ethical values as me. It would be a piss off democracy if I chose a representantive who campaigned for painting all buses blue because I share that view just for some unelected person coming to say “no that’s not ethical you shall not do that”.
Ethics of a society emerge from the society, not from a few individuals. Every person have a set of values and in democracies we chose what are the government positions on those values by voting. I think moral lobbing by a few selected individuals would be bad, no matter if priest of philosophy majors.
Philosophy is the science of thinking.
You are already doing it on an amateur level. Imagine what a professional would be capable of.
I only consider science those fields that can describe nature and assert this depiction of nature vie repeatable experiments. Thus I don’t agree on philosophy being a science.
I algo don’t agree that a professional would have better morals than me. Due the personal nature of what morality is.
Imagine I say my morals are the best, how is any professional philosopher to prove me wrong? It’s not possible. But if I say that “climate change is not real” a lot of climate scientist could show me evidence and offer me a set of experiments to undoubtedly prove me wrong.
I think of philosophy as a form of literature.
What we now call science developed directly out of philosophy. You don’t get to have science without it.
And the bible used to be considered an explanation on the origins of earth and the human being.
Luckily as time goes on humanity have been able to understand nature in better ways than we used to.
That is so utterly stupid that it shows why you should take a philosophy course.
I actually have. And I have read a LOT and I mean a LOT of philosophy.
All the great philosophers of history to begin with. I have read all their most famous works. And I have enjoyed them. I think they are great read. But great LITERATURE read. Not scientific reads.
I still think they are not science, as they do not describe nature. They just give opinions on several matters. And the few who dared to make any predictions about the future failed miserably.
If they are science they should be able to do predictions about nature. To propose experiments that are proven true. They should be falsable if proven untrue.
And just for the record, I have also read the full Bible. It’s also a great piece of literature, but it obviously doesn’t depict the reality of nature as a product of the scientific method.
And just to make a point, just because some old guy you got impressed by told you something is true, doesn’t make it true. Take this last sentence as you wish.
Applied ethics is not ‘what feels like it would be the most correct thing to do?’, it’s writing professional codes of conduct, establishing criteria for who should be allowed to get an organ transplant, who should be considered for parole, what scientific experiments should be allowed to happen, if I listed everything affected by the study of ethics I’d be here all day.
I don’t want a random schmuck who’s never thought about any of this for more than 5 minutes writing any of that, and I sure as shit don’t want people voting on it. That’s how you end up with abortion bans.
I’m pretty sure a lot of professional philosophers would agree on abortion bans, while a schmuck like myself agree on “mothers choice”… So…
You’re pretty sure based on what? Even self-proclaimed pro-life philosophers admit their position is rare. Ethics itself easily argues in favor of abortion but not against it, which is one reason it’s available in virtually every secular state.
You are starting from your conclusion (philosophy isn’t worth funding) and working backwards to make that fit any new evidence presented to you.
Not really. I’m just presenting arguments I have always had about philosophy not being a science.
Even if rare, not a single philosopher could make an experiment or present me a scientific theory that would prove that abortion is right or wrong. So the opinion of a single philosopher is as good as any other, and as good as mine for this matter.
Most modern philosophers are left wing, so yes, most philosophers would agree that left-wing morals are right, and that would present an opportunity for left-wing people to say that global morality should be decided by philosophers. I’m left wing myself but I’m against tricks and lies, even if they “benefit the cause”. And even if considering philosophers the moral light of our society would benefit me (as I mainly agree on most modern philosophers views) I personally consider it to be a false statement.
The not funding thing is on the air, yet. I’m just convinced is not a science, is more like literature and other forms of personal expression. And for me the argument would be founding all equally or none. And of course I don’t agree on giving any philosopher a position of authority on morals “just” for being a philosopher in the same way I would give a scientist an authority position in science just for being a scientist (once again, because the whole thing of science is that it’s subjected to experiments and falsifiability.
I don’t even want to diss philosophers. I enjoy reading philosophy a lot. But just as I enjoy reading any other kind of literature. I have respect for Liu Cixin (for instance) but I wouldn’t give him an special position in telling people what to do just because he writes good books that make you think.
And now you’ve moved your goalposts; first it was ‘convince me philosophy deserves government funding,’ now it’s ’philosophy isn’t a hard science and can’t show me on a graph why abortion is wrong’.
If you just don’t like the humanities receiving government funds, just say so instead of doing this song and dance about how it’s really about science and equality.
I literally wrote “I have a hard time understanding why we should fund philosophy studies with government money.”.
If you do a bias interpretation on that in your search for an enemy is on you.
I don’t write here trying to achieve any goal. I’m not a partisan not a propagandists.
My only goal, as suggested from the original comment was to know other people’s opinion a debate a little on that.
And I’m not even American, so I don’t really have much stakes on that the US government does or stop doing with their fundings.
As I have already said, it’s not that I don’t like humanities being funded. I don’t like them being treated as sciences, when they are not. I would support a humanities funding that would consists in a more democratic and spread funding that would allow to any member of the society to work on their humanities if they want. For instance funding for anyone self publishing a book on any matter (philosophy or fiction), building national archives and forums for this humanities to coexist.
But funding a philosophy department with a few elite philosophers who are getting a lot of money to do some philoshophing is just wrong from my pov. I could be convinced otherwise if a good argument is presented, but as far as it goes it has not been presented such argument.