It’s interesting that no one here is shocked by the notion that ethics can be ushered into science; that it can make the transition from Moral Philosophy into an empirical science.
When this topic was raised I anticipated more controversy. Now I am pleasantly surprised that the notion is noncontroversial.
The paper ETHICS; A College Course had a section defining what a science is. The document BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf
in its introduction explained what is fundamentally the main business of philosophy. The paper Living Well discussed the history: how Philosophy is the “Mother of the sciences.” Philosophy of Mind became the Science of Psychology; Astrology became Astronomy and Cosmology; Natural Philosophy became Physics; the philosophical ideas named “Politics” became Political Science. Cultural philosophy became Anthropology which later became part of the discipline Sociology. The philosophy of curing became the Science of Medicine today with its various branches: Anatomy; Physiology; Ophthalmology; Neurology; etc. So we see that before there was science there was philosophy as its precursor. The sciences were generated by Philosophy.
Now, with your help in defining moral terminology with a degree of precision, it is Ethics’ turn to make the transition.
Do you want to be a part of the adventure? What can you contribute? Now that a frame-of-reference, a framework, has been offered - as revealed in that little book amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU … 000&sr=1-1
- can you remain within that framework and help devise a more-rigorous network of concepts and ideas?
What do you say?