Philosophy Scientific Realism Questions Medium
Scientific realism and relativism are two contrasting positions within the philosophy of ethics. While both approaches aim to understand the nature of ethical truths, they differ in their perspectives on the objectivity and universality of ethical claims.
Scientific realism, in the context of ethics, asserts that ethical truths exist independently of human beliefs or cultural practices. It argues that ethical principles can be discovered through empirical investigation and scientific methods, similar to how scientific theories are developed. According to scientific realists, ethical claims can be objectively true or false, and they correspond to some external moral reality. This perspective suggests that there are universal ethical principles that hold true regardless of individual or cultural differences.
On the other hand, relativism in the philosophy of ethics posits that ethical truths are not objective or universal but rather dependent on individual or cultural perspectives. Relativists argue that ethical claims are subjective and vary across different societies, cultures, or individuals. According to this view, there is no single correct ethical framework, and moral judgments are relative to the particular context or cultural norms. Relativism emphasizes the diversity of ethical beliefs and rejects the idea of a universal moral truth.
In summary, the main difference between scientific realism and relativism in the philosophy of ethics lies in their stance on the objectivity and universality of ethical claims. Scientific realism asserts the existence of objective and universal ethical truths, while relativism argues for the subjectivity and relativity of ethical judgments.