Thread by @shrikanth_krish

History & Science are the two enemies of Moral Philosophy

Historicism makes everything "relative". Contingent on time and space. Discourages moral theorizing

Science trivializes human evil by making a monkey out of man. After all our ancestors were apes
Why aspire to virtue?

https://twitter.com/varsha_venkat_/status/1148217014089146368

History encourages the study of "context"
And discourages the quest for eternal rules. Eternal solutions. Eternal takes

It is very much opposed to both religion and moral philosophy - both of which aspire to seek to distinguish right from wrong. Define good and evil

A student of history wants to analyze events not through a moral prism but the prism of circumstances

Everyone is a product of his own time. We are all mere pawns. Great forces compel us

E.g. Don't criticize Aurangazeb. He had his compulsions

Science in a somewhat different way is equally opposed to moral philosophy

Science makes "Ego" a bad word. We shouldn't take ourselves too seriously

We are after all mere specks on an insigificant planet among the several millions of planets and galaxies

With this kind of an attitude, our existence is merely that of another animal species. A struggle to survive

Man is not at the center of the world. But someone deluded by his ego and ignorance

This attitude trivializes evil. Trivializes human power to distinguish moral right

With its heliocentrism and its theory of evolution, the message of science to Man is to take it easy.

Anything goes

As long as you can get along. And don't get caught doing "wrong"

Defining moral right and wrong is secondary here. Almost silly

So both History and Science are enemies of not just religion but moral philosophy more generally

Their general effect is to greatly discourage the quest for a moral law. Especially an "eternal" moral law

Science trivializes any quest for knowledge other than "scientific" knowledge and looks down upon non-science as mere "valuing"

History has a similar effect. By suggesting that everything is context. There is no permanent question. No permanent answer. Things move.

Post-script : Not my original takes. But greatly influenced by Harvey Mansfield - the elucidator of the thoughts of Leo Strauss

As religion continues to weaken, moral philosophy is without able warriors to fight Science and History - its two great adversaries

It needs a new lieutenant - someone as capable and adroit as religion was over the past 5K years in taking on the forces of nihilism and relativism

Both history and Science are also deeply opposed to "Politics"

Because Politics like Religion and Moral philosophy is prone to Judgments

Value judgments

Science finds this silly because it focuses on "problem solving"

In contrast, in politics you dont solve problems. You debate eternal questions eternally

E.g. Healthcare is not something you "solve". You debate it for ever. Same with social security. Same with immigration

Should kids take care of parents? Or should society?

This is not something to "solve"

You take sides on it. And debate as long as the species lives on

This doesn't suit "science" and "problem solvers"

Nor does it suit history

Because history is linear. It encourages a tendency to think in terms of "Progress"

But Politics is not about "progress". But debating the great moral questions. From both sides. Without resolving them

So it is not that unnatural that the great enemies of both religion and politics tend to be the more educated "objective" sort of people

Especially those given to reading history and learning Science

Personally I'm someone who has always hated Science. Used to love history but grown to hate it as well over time

So the Straussian polemic against History and Science immediately appealed to me

Clarification: This is not a tirade against reading either Science or History

But a reflection on how the Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of History militate against moral philosophy

Descartes and Hegel are perhaps emblematic figures of the two philosophies I mentioned

Some people (especially on the Left) think of Religion itself as antagonistic to moral philosophy

Religion with its support of dogma does not encourage the search for greater truths - that's the narrative

But my argument is - religion is nowhere near as harmful to moral philosophy as science or history

Theology has always had a fairly healthy relationship with philosophy

Be it St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas in the West
Be it Badarayana (Vyasa), Patanjali in India

So theology and moral philosophy are not at loggerheads as often assumed

But Science and History have more serious fundamental problems