[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Philosophy's lack of proofs
[Thread Prev] | [Thread Next]
- Subject: Philosophy's lack of proofs
- From: chokhmah <chokhmah@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2026 17:44:06 -0700
- To: ircnow-offtopic@xxxxxxxxxx
The problem with philosophy in general is the inability to verify or prove its conclusions. This was discussed in the past with idealism vs realism; there is no way to prove, without resorting to some authority or tradition, which is true. The Ship of Theseus paradox regarding identity is another. In this thread, let us discuss ethics. How do you *prove*, in a way convincing manner, that behavior XYZ is ethical? Take the hypothetical statement: "Killing X is wrong". X could represent a human, an animal, a plant, a cell, a robot, etc. Most people agree killing a human is wrong. Some believe killing an animal is wrong. A tiny minority believe killing a plant is wrong. Without religious tradition, how do you prove that Killing X is wrong, or that Killing X is ethically acceptable? As another example, take the ethical statement, "Y requires permission from Z". For example, Y could be taking a photo, which would require permission from Z the person in the photo. Or Y could be dumping pollution in a river, which would require permission from Z the municipality that owns the river. How do you *prove* that these actions are ethical or unethical? Plato thought that censorship of the arts and literature was ethical to achieve his goal of a harmonius, beautiful city. He believed deceiving the public was ethical to enforce an efficient caste system. He thought forced marriages and infanticide was ethical to achieve superior human breeds. Without resorting to tradition, how do you prove that what he believed was unethical? For these questions, there has been almost zero consensus amongst philosophers for over two thousand years. This is why ethics (and philosophy in general) appears to many to be a fruitless field. It is not because I do not desire to learn the truth. The problem is no hard proofs can ever be offered, so no consensus can ever be reached. The result is no truth is to be found. It is not like this in other fields like mathematics where proofs can be demonstrated, consistency and logic is systematic and methodical be demonstrated, and sometimes empirical experiments can even be used to confirm the truth of claims. chokhmah
| Re: Philosophy's lack of proofs | chokhmah@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Re: Philosophy's lack of proofs | chokhmah@xxxxxxxxxx |