Besides, what I view as healthy/unhealthy is not a view shared by many parts of the world. Health is simply not a thing that lends itself to a global definition. Therefore, the question is not only moot, it is unanswerable.Originally Posted by DiAnna
Imagine if all doctors thought like this. Fortunately, we accept general conceptions of what consittutes "good" health and "bad" health and conclude that "good" health is better than "bad" health. We have the science of medicine and we automatically recommend and prescribe based on what is better for our health. We do this regardless of the philosophical issues that can be raised the way we can raise it for morality.
There is a similar danger when we think about morality in this way. Abiding to and enforcing and expecting moral codes such as don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, etc. all perpetuate one effect: better cooperation in a society. Living in a society that cooperates better will give a desirable effect for the well-being of those involved. Granted, we cannot focus on things like the average well-being or the total well-being without running into problems, but it must aggregate somewhere. I think we can accept that most of us desire to improve our well-being, and find it obvious that improving your well-being is better than reducing it or doing nothing about it. Although we find it obvious, we won't necessarily accept it to be true, and so many of us reject this assumption. They will also commonly cite or partially relate to the is/ought problem. Not being able to derive an ought from an is just means you would not be able to make a logical argument on it through deduction. So what? This does not exclude induction. We can still infer to better explanations. Heck, you have to establish inferences as to what to do the second you accept the is/ought problem. The same way we accept "better" health and "worse" health and have a science of medicine, we can accept what is "better" and "worse" for our well-being and have a science of morality., if we agree to base morality this, and I'd argue this is the only thing we can base it on. I won't cover that in this specific post, but I will in another if someone asks me to. Granted, health is essentially a part of well-being, which simply means that matters of health will in part be covered both morality and medicine, but in different ways. A science of morality can be used to determine what is better for our well-being (mainly through examining different brain states and how that changed according to specific circumstances) the same way medicine is used to determine what is better and worse for our health. If we refuse to use science for this purpose, then we damn well better stop using medicine for the purpose of improving our health if we want to remain consistent.
A person who says we cannot say that we ought to stamp out the practice of burning people alive, but at the same time will be perfectly comfortable saying that we ought to take or prescribe a pill to treat a condition is being silly. If anyone wants to refrain from condemning peoples actions based on a violation of morality, then they better be prepared to do the same in regards to other peoples medical practices, because many philosophical propositions about conclusions on morality can be said for conclusions on health. I see no reason why we don't say that a cultures morality is bad because of it's effect on their well-being the same way we can say their medical practices is bad because it is it's effect on their health.
Last edited by Strelok; 02-22-11 at 10:33 AM.
When saints are just dead sinners amended and revised, no wonder why greed and humiliation become the norms to bound and regulate mankind.
No. People are still manipulating others to achieve their objectives without regard for the intrinsic worth of the people they manipulate.
If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.