Ethical Axioms Are Found And Tested Not Very Differently From The Axioms Of Science. Truth Is What S Essay, Research Paper

Einstein claims “Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently

from the axioms of science,” and that “Truth is what stands the test of time.”

However, in this paper, an attempt will be made to show that finding and testing

of axioms are done differently in the two areas, and that “truth” as we know it,

does not stand the test of time, just as nothing else does.

First of all, a definition should be brought to axioms. Axioms are “self

evident truths” or “universally accepted principles or rules.” The former

definition can be applied more closely to ethical axioms while the latter more

closely to the scientific ones.

In this sense, an ethical axiom can be “It is wrong to take someone’s life,”

and a scientific axiom can be “Every object continues in its state of rest or

uniform speed in a straight line unless a force acts on it.” The first example

shows an obvious truth that is universally accepted by people with healthy

minds. This conclusion must have been reached like a scientific axiom — by

observation — that is, by seeing that killing someone arises strong emotions

and counter actions in people related to the victim in some way. A widely

accepted test to see if an action is ethical is to try evaluating if one would

like the same thing done to oneself. When this test is applied, the immorality

of killing someone is supported. Let’s leave this example briefly to look at the

example of a scientific axiom, called a law. It was stated that every object

continues in its state of rest or uniform speed in a straight line unless a

force acts on it. This example is known as Newton’s first law of motion. This

law has been reached through careful observation of objects in motion, and with

the recognition of friction as a force. Recognition of friction is crucial since

when friction is present, objects slow down and eventually stop. However,

friction can be minimized for experimental purposes. A puck on a hockey rink

will move nearly at a constant speed and in a straight line unless a force acts

on it, that is, when someone hits it.

In both examples, the axiom was reached by generalizing observations, and

later a small test was done to show how they apply. The way these axioms are

reached and tested appears similar up to this point. However, when the tests are

further examined, it can be seen that the test for morality requires asking

oneself if one would want others to act in the same way. The answer is intuitive

and subjective. There may not be much question about being murdered, but people

clearly have differing views about euthanasia. There are even cases where this

test may not apply, such as capital punishment. On the other hand, the test for

Newton’s first law of motion shows clearly that as much as senses can perceive,

the law holds true. For further precision, the test can be repeated taking the

small friction into account, and using instruments that will provide more

precision than our senses.

In cases where there are exceptions, scientific and ethical axioms are

treated quite differently. The initial example of an ethical axiom, that it is

immoral to kill, still stands. Killing would be “acceptable” if one was being

attacked, and it might be acceptable (the “might be” is stressed to show that

there is controversy) to put one out of his misery ? euthanasia. It might be

acceptable in countless other cases, but the general idea that it is wrong to

kill remains. However, scientific axioms are treated differently. If only one

case contradicted the law stated above, the law would be disproved and could not

be used reliably. This difference is the result of differences in the nature of

the two types of axioms. Political and ethical laws “are prescriptive: they tell

us how we ought to behave,” so a choice can be made whether or not to follow it.

On the other hand, “scientific laws are descriptive: they do not say how nature

should behave, but rather are meant to describe how nature does behave.” When a

new exception to an ethical axiom is brought up, it is either accepted, often

with controversy, or rejected saying “that’s not the way it ought to be.” When a

case contradictory to predictions in a scientific law is found, it is further

investigated in order to improve the law, and that particular case is excluded

until a better law is stated.

As it can be seen in the final example, both types of axioms change over

time. As new cases arise, new axioms are formed to improve the predecessors or

to replace them altogether. Some ethical axioms lose their strict shape as the

demands of the new generations change, and new axioms are being developed as new

issues, such as the possibility of cloning, arise. Axioms in science also

undergo great changes. As new dimensions to problems are seen, axioms change.

Revolutions in scientific axioms are called paradigm shifts.

Newton’s second law has a background reaching the time of Aristotle. Through

observation, Aristotle reached the conclusion that an initial push was needed to

put an object in motion. However, the object would slow down and stop if some

force was not always applied, therefore the natural state of an object was

believed to be being at rest. At his time, this was just as sound a law as

Newtonian laws are in our time.

In the development of Newtonian Laws, a third person, Galileo, should also be

given credit since he was the first person to see that friction was the force

slowing the objects down. This creative idea might be obvious to us now, just as

many other ideas that we can not even imagine may be obvious to future

generations. Newtonian view of motion is not any more “true” than Aristotle’s

view. It only appears so to us because we see something Aristotle omitted,

friction, just as future scientist may see many things that we omit. As new

cases arise, such as motion at very high speeds, new explanations are made.

Einstein already brought a whole new view to motion at speeds close to that of

light. One of the statements in his theory (it is only called a theory because

scientists now avoid claiming “laws”) is that a part of the energy put into an

object to accelerate it increases the object’s mass, thus making it more

difficult to accelerate. This already shows that our calculations using Newton’s

second law of motion (which relates force with mass and acceleration) while

assuming a constant mass are imprecise.

As seen in the examples throughout the paper, the two types of axioms are

reached and tested partly in similar ways, but also in differing ways. However

they may be, no “truth” of our time can be claimed to last. Just as many other

products of human effort: buildings, statues, and machinery have rumbled down to

the ground, the products of thought will also be twisted, distorted and

falsified by time ? which in itself is not absolute, as Einstein himself claims.