Is Science Enough of a Moral Authority?

4min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

The question then is moral authority. How do we adjudicate a? What constitutes a compelling reason a for taking this action or that action? Is science enough of a moral authority, a to intervene in a dispute and in a conflict? A? It may be that we have, we are able to develop a science, a of the good, that will tell us what is right and wrong. We don't believe that that's possible. But even if it were, is science enough of amoral authority to makeit compelling a the disputants in a conflict? I don't think so. Am what is authoritative and what is not? What people find compelling and what people um find trivial

In their book Science and the Good, professional philosophers James Hunter and Paul Nedelisky trace the origins and development of the centuries-long, passionate, but ultimately failed quest to discover a scientific foundation for morality. The conversation takes a decidedly interesting turn when Drs. Hunter and Nedelisky reveal that they are both theists and that their Christian worldview informs their thinking on moral issues. The three then dig into the weeds of the difference between religious and secular moral systems, the nature of God and morality, why a purely naturalistic approach to morality does not negate religion or even the existence of God (natural law could be God’s way of creating moral values), natural rights and rights theory, consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics, progress in philosophy, why philosophers never seem to reach consensus on important subjects like morality, how to think about issues like abortion, why they believe in God and follow the Christian religion and yet reject Divine Command Theory, and much more.