Abstract
There is a well-established point of view that science and morality are two poles of a person’s conscious (conscious) attitude to the world: the first one tells what the world is in itself, the second one tells about what to do with the world. Science objectifies the world, turns everything it touches, including man himself, into an object; morality looks at the world subjectively, in its own interests, i.e. the interest of the viewer. This difference was succinctly expressed by Kant in the questions: “What can I know?” and “What should I do?”. Science and morality are opposites, which is essentially included in the definition of each of them, they are interconnected by mutual negation. They are also aspects of human activity, practice, abstract (one-sided) reflections of which they, in fact, are. The unity of science (knowledge) and morality (must) can be adequately disclosed within the framework of a philosophical tradition that understands being as practice. This idea is developed in the article on the example of M.M. Bakhtin, namely, science (cognition) determines the content of an act, morality is responsible for the fact of an act in its living, personally expressed uniqueness. Science and morality in this sense complement each other. In conclusion, an example is considered that illustrates the unity of morality and scientific truth.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
