You could get lost forever in quibbles about semantic differences & cultural variability.or you cld just take it as a need to define terms..
-
-
-
clearly and point out that differences exist before getting on to the science. Or you might just never get there.
-
eg I'd use the word 'love' to describe my feelings for my friends. My husband wouldn't but I'd be v surprised if he cared less deeply.
-
Gender difference there. Cultural differences also exist. Brits prob talk abt their feelings of love less than most but feel it as much.
-
It will be important to point this out sometimes but not all the time to the point where neuroscience stalls on philosophy.
-
We won't solve 'what is virtue' but we don't need to to look at morality using neuroscience. Just explain what you're looking at.
-
eg can look at how our sense of fairness works without having first established a consensus on the concept of justice.
-
There are some who would have scientists never do science but just reflect on the way culture influences & is influenced by science.
-
We get it. You're more interested in culture than science. I am too. By all means write abt that. Rigorously. With clear examples.
-
But it's arrogant & presumptuous to keep insisting that scientists focus on what interests you & that what interests you is always relevant.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Neuroscience should steer far away from philosophy, neuroscience is more about the material world while philosophy is about "spirituality".
-
Did you read the article? It was talking about definitions of concepts neuroscientists look at.
-
Yes I read the article. It just doesn't matter if trolley problems are in some ethical traditions not moral problems.
-
What is being moral is a spiritual question rather than a material question. The material question is about the difference in response.
-
Or philosophical depending on how you define these, yes. Considering morality in the abstract rather than as cognitive & behavioural thing.
-
Indeed, otherwise I fear the emergence of naturalistic/moralistic fallacies and both lead to the abuse of science and ethics.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.