In philosophy, there is no right or wrong answer; it is all a matter of opinion. This statement is perhaps one of the most debated and controversial arguments in value theory in philosophy of ethics. The theory value gives content to some ethical claims about what “right” and “wrong” actions entail. Consequentiality of right holds that a person should always take the actions that will result into the best outcome.
Prior knowledge or probability that some action will result in the desired outcome is necessary. However, the main question in this case is to determine what makes an outcome “good”. For instance, there are no logics in telling people to promote good without giving them a prior knowledge of what that “good” is or means.
Non-consequentialists also recognize some moral duty for philosophers to promote good by first telling the people what that “good” entails. In addition, non-consequentialist view of duties to promote good shows that there is a need to prove the actions that are right and those that are wrong.
For instance, these duties might make it possible to prove that an action with an overall good outcome is in itself wrong. For example, killing an armed person to protect the lives of ten people might be viewed as a right action in consequentialism. On the other hand, the action of killing the armed man is itself wrong because it destroys life, and one is not sure whether the man would have killed or not killed the ten innocent individuals.
Therefore, none of these actions is either right or wrong. To determine whether the action is right or wrong is a matter of the philosophers’ opinion. For instance, if someone proves that the sky is blue because human perceptions provide the reality, then that opinion can be justified and therefore, not wrong.
Given the success of science, does the world need philosophy? The success of science in proving old mysteries in nature has proved effective in undermining or upholding old philosophical explanations of various aspects of nature. The success of using science in solving problems has become so dominant that other forms of knowledge attempt to be close to the scientific discourse.
In fact, scientific knowledge seems to be masking other forms of knowledge, including philosophy. However, this does not mean that other forms of knowledge, including philosophy, have become obsolete. In fact, it is worth taking science as a form of support to the modern philosophy.
The emergence of the philosophy of science as a field of study proves that philosophy is still relevant and required in the modern context, despite the success of the scientific discourse.
In this context, it is worth noting that humans orient their lives around the ideas of searching for the truth and reality. We desire to know how the realty should guide our behaviors. In this context, it is clear that metaphysical theory, moral and ethical theories develop the foundation for scientific research.
By asking philosophical questions about human and nature, people are making foundations for further research, which in this case will involve scientific methods. In other words, science is used to solve philosophically derived questions. Therefore, philosophy is needed more than before.
Is philosophy relevant now that we have the biblical knowledge? This question has also dominated the debate on the need for philosophy in the modern context. Religious scholars have argued that much of the questions that rose in philosophy, especially those concerning the nature, truth, right and wrong and humanity can be solved through biblical knowledge.
They tend to argue that philosophy is an obsolete knowledge that heavily relied on questioning the existence of man and God, which is not only wrong, but also unjustified. However, modern scholars in both philosophy and the bible view the two aspects as closely related. For instance, the biblical is in itself a religious philosophy that tends to answer some of the questions raised in ancient philosophies.
For example, people like King Solomon were practically philosophers who raised and answered many questions about humanity. They interpreted the idea of right and wrong and related these to their knowledge of the will of God and human desire. In this case, we see that biblical knowledge is a form of philosophical knowledge.
Given that human are still advancing, the philosophy of the modern times attempt to raise questions in humanity and religion, which can be answered from the biblical perspective. Therefore, the philosophy of religion is still relevant and needed in the modern context.
In the contemporary education system, science has obscured other forms of knowledge, especially philosophical ideologies. It often appears that philosophy is an obscure discipline with little practical value. It seems irrelevant for students pursuing careers in medicine, business, engineering, technology and law. However, it is worth looking philosophy from a modern context.
For instance, philosophy primarily seeks to determine the difference between appearance and the reality. The practical role of philosophy is to dig deep into the phenomenon or object of interest and determine the difference between the reality and appearance.
When such questions are raised, it is the role of the persons involved to use scientific and other forms of knowledge to reveal the difference. In this way, questions are answered. Thus, philosophy has some significant practical application.