In my personal life I tend to associate mostly with very practical, down-to-earth people. One of the questions I hear commonly from such people is “how is philosophy useful in day-to-day life?” The answer to this question lies in the area of philosophy that deals with human action: ethics.

The purpose of philosophy is to answer the question “what should I do?” This question cannot be escaped; even the choice not to act is a course of action. If you chose to act without answering the question of how you should act your action may be wrong, and more importantly you do not know whether or not it is wrong. The answer cannot be accepted on faith as religion asserts because an answer taken on faith no more solves the problem of knowing whether or not an action is wrong than the choice not to answer the question.

Imagine you are in line at a bank when masked robbers burst in the door with guns in hand. The robbers order everyone to the floor, and then turn their back to you. What do you do in this situation? Do you get down on the floor and avoid any trouble? Do you attempt to sneak out the back while they are not watching you? Do you attempt to be a hero and tackle them from behind? What if it becomes clear that the robbers are going to take hostages? What if it becomes clear that they are going to kill hostages?

Philosophy disciplines the mind, it enables you to make sound decisions based on your ability to recognize and act on the facts. In a potentially dangerous situation with many options available to you, such as the bank heist, the ability to think clearly and to make accurate choices is of obvious benefit; but it is of far greater benefit in every-day life, how do you act when faced with choices at work? At home? In public places? Are you simply going to rely on instinct or hope for you’re your boss to tell you what to do?

Philosophy examines the nature of reality. You must first understand what is real to be able to choose the best action in any situation.

The value of science is far more obvious to most, however some individuals on occasion take it upon themselves to criticize science, and some will even challenge the moral grounds of science. Statements like “science is just another option when it comes to understanding reality, but it’s not the only option” or “evolution does not dictate a moral theory, therefore creationism is superior” or “science is just a dogmatic set of terms describing reality, it’s much like religion” are all based in a rejection of reality. In defence of science I contend that science can only ever be a product of moral action, and that those who oppose it are in opposition to morality.

Science requires the recognition, acceptance and understanding of reality. The scientist, once with understanding of reality, acts. The scientist does not act in just in any old fashion, not on impulse or emotion, not on faith and not on instruction; the scientist acts based on their understanding of reality.

Is science “just another option”? No, science is the product of man and his ability to act in reality.

Is science inferior because it prescribes no moral theory like creationism? No, science is the product of moral theory. Science does not need to prescribe morality; science is a prescription of morality.

Is science just a dogmatic description of reality? No, it is action based on reality.

By Will Keates