Conclusions in ethics and mathematics (Essay Sample)

Name:
Course:
Tutor:
Date:
Question: "Through different methods of justification, we can reach conclusions in ethics that are as well-supported as those provided in mathematics" to what extent do you agree?
I disagree. Conclusion in ethics and conclusion in mathematics evoke varied opinions to different groups owing to their appeal to the groups’ emotion, reason, memory and reference to authority. In other words, the conclusions reached in ethics might have diverse opinions across different parties around the world as might mathematical conclusions. For purposes of clarity and vivid comprehension, given is the definition of critical terms to facilitate the elucidation and illumination of the question under consideration. Mathematics can be defined as “an abstract science of numbers, space and quantity.” According to Sharan, ‘mathematics is a science of calculation, logical reasoning and an inductive and experimental science.” (Sharan, pp.1-2) The world, literally, is intrinsically mathematical. Every day and time we think of numbers, quantities and space. As we walk we think of the distance covered like 5 miles, the time to wake up, and the amounts to spend e.g. 40 dollars among others. (Sharan, pp.1-2)
Ethics has varied definitions as it is used in diverse contexts. According to Popkin and Stroll, in philosophical context, the term ethics is used to mean guiding principles for human behavior that state the ingredients of good life for man. (Popkin and Stroll, pp. 1-2) It can be said to be a system of moral values. Ethics can be divided to ethical absolutism and ethical relativism. What is ethically absolute is generally and universally accepted as right or wrong or unacceptable and undesirable. Ethical relativism means the question of morality does not have universal applicability. The methods of justification include empiricism, memory, logic and reference to authority. A “well-supported” claim is one that is backed by soundly developed premises and building blocks and is sufficiently justified by the various justification methods. Thinking about and around the subject in question, the following knowledge concerns became apparent.
To begin with, mathematical conclusions are reached through application of a set of axioms developed for each theory that adequately justify the conclusions. The mathematical axioms act as a guideline towards the achievement of a conclusion. What is worth noting here is that mathematical axioms are universally accepted and above all, they appeal to reason. For instance simple mathematical computations like 5+5 will always yield 10. It would be impossible and unreasonable to get a different answer other than 10 for the above computation. So long as the language and instruction are clear, the answer to the above problem is universally agreeable as only 10. For instance the highly plausible Euclidean geometry’s - Pythagoras theorem, used to explain the relationship of variables in a right-angle triangle, contains a set of axioms that are universally agreed and used to arrive at conclusions that are not detestable. On the other hand, conclusions in ethics are not achieved through well-defined and universal axioms. Ethical dilemmas are diagnosed through a number of axioms. The diverse axioms therefore, by and large, make ethical conclusions not well-supported as opposed to those of mathematics.
Secondly, as dictated by ethical relativism, it is agreeable to note that ethical conclusions can be influenced by emotions contrary to those of mathematics which are not. For instance in Utilitarianism theory, maximization of the end, happiness, remains the objective. The axiom might however evoke different perceptions across different parties around the world. For instance, the term ‘happiness’ has diverse meanings to different groups and at different contexts. True happiness is differently defined across cultures around the world. For example, consumption of alcohol might derive pleasure and therefore happiness but consumption of alcohol in itself might bear lost-lasting pain and suffering to the consumers. The means might not justify the end. Similarly, adultery might derive pleasure to the adulterers and consequently temporary happiness. However, the effects of adultery might be grave and unbearable. To a Christian, true happiness cannot be achieved here on earth but only in heaven- a place they believe to be eternal and full of bliss. It is thus evident that ethical aesthetics are influenced by emotions of different people at different times as disclosed by the diversity in Utilitarian theory. Mathematical conclusions are not subject to emotion nor the feelings and perceptions of individuals. They are based on founding fundamental principles that cannot easily be challenged. As such ethical conclusions always create room for contest unlike mathematical conclusions.
Thirdly, it would also be true to say that ethical proofs may be inconsistent and incomplete as compared to mathematical claims which are consistent and complete. If trespass is considered to be ethically wrong, would one not be justified to trespass and save a life? The axiom therefore that trespass is ethically wrong can be violated under special circumstances hence making the conclusion that trespass is unethical inconsistent and incomplete. Using the syllogistic approaches used by Aristotle, deductive reasoning does not always hold. It is not a rule of thumb. If for example we say that ‘all university students are clever’, and ‘all freshmen are university students’ by deductive reasoning, it would be syllogistically true to say that ‘all freshmen are clever’ this might not be true. Mathematical conclusions from syllogistic approach are consistent and complete. For example if the number 3 is greater than 2 and 2 is greater than 1, then by transitivity, 3 is automatically greater than 1. This fact is consistent and not detestable.
It is however worthy to note that not all conclusions in mathematics are well-supported. Kurt Gödel theorem proved that there are true statements that are expressible in mathematical language but cannot be proved. As a matter of fact, Euclidean geometry without the parallel postulate can be said to be incomplete. With the remaining axioms, it would not be possible to proof or disproof the parallel postulate. This clearly shows that not all mathematical conclusions are well supported. But then, can...