Can a moral claim be falsifiable?
In any case, I wonder if I can make some fruitful analogies between Popperian philosophy of science and either social mores or applied ethics. For example, is there an ethical equivalent of falsifiability or unfalsifiability in an ethical theory?
Did a Google search on "Can a moral claim be falsifiable?" The top-ranked page was an interesting article in defence of the general philosophy of falsificationism1.
But some people claim that moral claims cannot be falsified, yet everybody takes ethics seriously. Furthermore, we clearly seem to value that everybody takes ethics seriously, and this is a value that holds up well upon reflection.
Horrible. In other words, we should refer to some sacred text in order to disprove a moral claim like "homosexuality is morally neutral". This is a Christian article that is badly abusing the conception of unfalsifiability, and it is evidence of exactly how such a principle can be open to abuse. Clearly, if falsifiability is to pertain to ethics, it cannot be in the form of any kind of recourse to a sacred text, for this is just dogmatism in a sacramental robe. Nevertheless, I have to think that there are more fruitful versions of moral falsificationism out there. I shall explore an alternative account of moral falsification in the next few sections.
1Gene Edward Veith, "The falsifiable principle", World magazine, Feb. 5, 2000, Volume 15, Number 5.
Did a Google search on "Can a moral claim be falsifiable?" The top-ranked page was an interesting article in defence of the general philosophy of falsificationism1.
It may not be possible to prove that light is the fastest thing in the universe, but if something were found that was faster, the claim would be disproven. A statement such as "light is the consciousness of the universe" not only can't be proven; there is no conceivable way one could come up with evidence against it. It can't be verified, and it can't be falsified. Therefore, strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense, and we don't need to take it seriously.
But some people claim that moral claims cannot be falsified, yet everybody takes ethics seriously. Furthermore, we clearly seem to value that everybody takes ethics seriously, and this is a value that holds up well upon reflection.
Some logicians attempt to apply the falsifiable principle to moral statements, claiming that sentences like "Thou shalt not steal" can neither be proven nor disproven and therefore are mere subjective preferences, without the status of fact. But while an "ought" is not the same as an "is," and therefore has different criteria, the Christian worldview does offer a way to verify or disprove moral claims: the Bible. Having an objective, authoritative source for our beliefs allows us to think about moral and spiritual issues with great clarity.
Horrible. In other words, we should refer to some sacred text in order to disprove a moral claim like "homosexuality is morally neutral". This is a Christian article that is badly abusing the conception of unfalsifiability, and it is evidence of exactly how such a principle can be open to abuse. Clearly, if falsifiability is to pertain to ethics, it cannot be in the form of any kind of recourse to a sacred text, for this is just dogmatism in a sacramental robe. Nevertheless, I have to think that there are more fruitful versions of moral falsificationism out there. I shall explore an alternative account of moral falsification in the next few sections.
Notes
1Gene Edward Veith, "The falsifiable principle", World magazine, Feb. 5, 2000, Volume 15, Number 5.
Comments