One either buys into the development of reason and science and what surrounds it or one don't.
Which is irrelevant. Science answers scientific questions. It can, at least to a reasonable extent, settle or at least illuminate, questions about which scientific evidence has been discovered. It says essentially nothing about philosophical questions* such as questions of meta-ethics. As for reason, that's a very general idea, and one which can, and has, been used to defend all different sorts of meta-ethical theories. Buying in to science and reason, doesn't get you to subjective morality. It simply doesn't. Your leaping beyond that. Not in an anti-rational or anti-scientific way, but in an ascientific way (which may be a neologism, but I assume you understand what I mean, if not I'll explain the term).
* Some philosophical questions can later become areas were we do have scientific evidence, meta-ethics doesn't seem likely to be one, at certainly isn't one to any great degree now |
