Although there is an absolute
truth in natural sciences that can
not be reached, there can't be one
in ethics because the construction
of ethics is human, and is valid
only to humans. Therefore in
ethics there can never be a
conclusion that is correct.
"There is no right or
wrong, it is thinking that
makes it so. "
Different ethical theories and
stances will lead to different
ethical conclusions, both of
which can be 'right' in their line
Difference between a
and a kantian
on your own personal
moral code you can
conclusions which can
all be reasoned to be
both will reach a moral decision/conclusion that
can be correct in their line of thought, but will
theories will shape
Different theories of
evolution lead to different
conclusions on evolution
However they are not all conclusions at the
same tome, one theory will disprove the
previous and a new conclusion will be formed
"A wiseman therefore
proportions his belief to the
This conclusion accepted will be the
one with a) the most evidence
(suporrted with reasoning/) or b) with
the most support/majority
However since conclusions in
NS can be disproved, no
conclusion can be reached, as
there is always potential for it
to be disproven.
"Science is a very human form
of knowing we are always at
the brink of the known."
To what extent do the concepts we use shape the conclusions we reach?
To what extent do the concepts we use in the natural sciences and ethics shape the conclusions we reach?
Concepts are a human form of knowledge and although
there is a 'conclusion' it can not be reached by humans
due to the limitations in the formation of concepts.
A concept is an abstract idea or theory
that is a product of a perspective.
Different concepts stem from
different ways of thinking and
perspectives can lead
will lead to
Multiple conclusions can be
reached,most of which could be valid
when shaped from the concepts used.
Different AOK's will lead to diff
conclusions, and diff concepts in
the same AOK can lead to diff