Philosophy

Are answers to philosophical questions always distinct from sociological questions? How much should the two fields inform one another or at all? It seems particularly when it comes to ethics, many people give philosophical answers to sociological questions and vice versa. For example, suppose a legislature attempts to censor certain very violent forms of pornography after several studies and interviews with criminals confirm that its proliferation causes more sex crimes in society. This seems like a proposed sociological solution. But if a group of political, legal, and moral philosophers in academia object, claiming that producing and watching violent pornography is not immoral, regardless if does lead to more sex crimes (since it is done with the personal autonomy of performers and viewers), how should the public balance the two differing arguments?

Comments

One might say that sociology asks what people think and why they think it - for instance how social factors affect their attitudes, ideas, and values and so on - while philosophy is more concerned with (firstly) identifying which attitudes, ideas, and values are defensible (in the sense that good reasons and arguments can be given for them) and (secondly) critically assessing the reasons that people in fact have.

After all many of our ideas and values are the results of custom and habit rather than reflection and deliberation, and this can cause problems - as both Socrates and the Buddha recognised long ago - but the question of which discipline (law, sociology, philosophy, etc.) has authority here is a tricky one. Socrates found that society does not always welcome philosophical criticism, though the Buddha fared slightly better through his gentler, less intrusive style of philosophising!

Read another response by Ian Kidd

Read another response about Philosophy