This article is organized from least important to most important because it starts out with the boring science things. The tone of this passage is cynical because it says, "...suggest science is sufficient to accomplish what moral philosophers have been unable to accomplish-..." they are questioning weather or not scientists or philosophers are really correct. This article is explaining weather morality has a scientific explanation. A scientific understanding comes from this email stating, "If you think abortion is wrong because fetuses feel pain, science can in principle investigate that. If you think that torture is wrong because in no case can the suffering of one individual can prevent the suffering of many, that's amenable to investigation, too." But it also says that in neither case would that scientist be examining the morality of action.
One detail that the main idea is trying to get across is when it says, "ways of knowing" which is not really clear because it can't just be "ways of knowing", there has to be more. Another detail is that scientists are as prone to ideological thinking as human beings are, which is saying that scientists are NOT perfect and are still only human and can make false assumptions about anything. One last detail that I noticed was
was...?
ReplyDelete