The Need for a Revalation of Moral Truth, Part Two: Empiricism

Philosophos: What of empiricism?

Nomodiphas: I am not convinced that empiricism can serve as the basis for good laws.

Philosophos: Why not?

Nomodiphas: Empiricism, as you know, is basically the observation of physical phenomena. If we observe an occurrence and the same occurrence happens the same way over and over again, then it is an empirical (or scientific) truth. If we combine certain chemicals a number of times and they produce the same compound, we can be confident that every time we combine those chemicals the same compound will be produced. We have observed the sun and stars long enough to be able to predict where constellations will be in what season and when an eclipse will occur.

Philosophos: This type of truth appears to be sound, how does it fail?

Nomodiphas: Because empiricism only deals with physical matters, it is unfit to comment on the moral realm.

Philosophos: How so?

Nomodiphas: For example, we may observe a man being murdered and be able to understand how he died, but from this observation alone we cannot say that murder is immoral. We can observe how a farmer plants crops and how they grow, but from that observation alone we cannot say that he is entitled to the fruits of his labor. We can observe the fact that men make contracts, but observation alone cannot dictate that they ought to keep their contracts. Empiricism gives us a description of how we act, but it cannot provide a proscription of how we ought to act. It may help us understand how things are, but it can give us no understanding of things should be. Empiricism provides for us a whole host of knowledge and truth but it is ill equipped to provide a foundation for good laws.