'Science Can Answer Moral Questions'. How Far Do You Agree?

836 Words4 Pages
Singh KS ‘Science can answer moral questions.’ How far do you agree? Phineas Gage was your typical 19th century Vermont railroad foreman, that is considering moral behaviour. Admired by his counterparts for his industry and high moral fibre, one could never predict any phenomena that might breach such decent values. However, a pivotal explosion, which permanently damaged Phineas’s medial pre-frontal cortex, would astound his counterparts, not to mention the scientific community. Following the fateful injury, the lawful citizen had warped into a lawless, troublemaking, anti-social individual, whilst still retaining default mental capacities. When shown distressing photographs of drowning and gory images by scientists, Phineas was reported to knowingly bear no emotional response whatsoever, whereas when asked to explain basic questions of morality and social conventions such as theft, there was nothing different from him and an ordinary citizen. Cases such as these have increased the likelihood of separation between cognitive abilities and moral delicacies. Indeed, science draws us ever closer to explaining moral processes, but whether it draws us closer to answering moral questions remains elusive. Arguably, the ethical model in which science can answer moral questions depends upon the existence of a universal code of morality. This is because science will search for discrete answers for each moral question in a particular context. A moral system which is universally accepted cannot be disputed by differing opinions, hence science can only answer moral questions if one system holds true. A simplified view of this model can be found from a famous essay of Benjamin Franklin, “On the Morals of Chess”. Franklin argues that the approach to successful chess is similair to that of moral conduct, namely to exercise virtues like patience, caution and
Open Document