I agree with Nicole in that Psychology is a domain that provides evidence in support of claims, but may not in itself be able to propose how thing ought to be. However, I think this statement is certainly underestimating the importance of psychological methodology within philosophical discourse. In order to illustrate this I will use the example that Nicole provides. Yes, psychology does not tell us that mentally disabled persons should not be euthanized. But, is this telling action even required? In a lot of cases, just from using an elementary level of reasoning, it should be evident what decisions should be made based of psychological data.
I think that it should also be noted that, without psychological data, many of the decisions that Nicole outlines could not be made appropriately. For example, without Psychological research methods, we would understand the human mind well enough to make decisions about how we ought to act in many cases. The process of providing evidence for these axiological claims are as important as making the claims themselves.
“However, you see, psychology has not told us that it is wrong to euthanize people with down syndrome”
I thought this statement was intriguing because it seems to be much more contentious then it looks on the surface. It seems that the veracity of this statement is dependent upon what the word told denotes in this situation. It could be argued that psychology does in fact tell us that it is wrong to euthanize disabled persons because of the data that it has provided. Of course, it does not explicitly state what we ought to do, but the data may contain the implicit implication of the action that should be taken. Furthermore, as I previously stated, without this data, it would not be clearly known what type of rights disabled persons are due.
One last point that I think should be made regarding psychology and its importance within philosophical discourse. It is important that we do not forget that the field of psychology developed directly out of philosophy. The first psychologists were in fact, primarily philosophers. For example, one of the founders of psychology, William James, was a philosopher before he was a psychologist. These things should not be forgotten when we are evaluating the importance of psychology within philosophical discourse. Psychology is, in essence, a major sub domain within philosophy.
1 comments:
I understand what you're saying and I agree that there is the tacit implication that if we find mentally disabled people capable of the same emotions, they have a right to live. However, I was arguing under the assumption that you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". The fact that people can be harmed does not tell us whether it is right or wrong to harm them. But yes, these implications should be obvious to any empathetic, thoughtful person.
Post a Comment