LETTER: We must not over-simplify the crucial debates around ethics in public policy

Claims such as “science says we must lock down”, “follow the evidence” and similar assertions have been thrown around as if they are a given. Yet, as the philosopher and polymath David Hume pointed out, there is a world of difference between statements about what is, and statements about what ought to be. Hume argued the point that how we move from the descriptive to the prescriptive is not all that clear, a quandary that has become known as Hume's guillotine.

Science, used to determine what exists concretely, does not make normative claims about that which ought to be. We have certain non-negotiable rights enshrined in the constitution for a reason. Good ends do not necessarily justify any and all means to achieve said ends. Paying attention to scientific evidence is crucial, but so too is not over-simplifying the crucial debates around ethics in public policy.

Science, while nearly invaluable in informing public policy, is not the sole determinant of what is ethical and what is not. One is guilty of the fallacy of begging the question when one presupposes consequentialist ethics, most notably utilitarianism, as the guiding framework, as the very question is around what is ethical and how we determine it.

Ethics is much more complex than “X is, therefore Y ought to be.” So are the numerous other debates in philosophy that are relevant here, such as the problem of induction in the philosophy of science, the metaphysical question of what evidence even is, and the epistemic question of whether empiricism, rationalism or both are appropriate to determine it.

None of this is “denying science” or “ignoring evidence”. Instead, it is acknowledging the complexities of our world, and that the empirical sciences are not a panacea to these issues — indeed, what is more “scientific” than the process of asking uncomfortable questions? 

If anything, the current pandemic has shown the need for scientists to embrace the right philosophical framework to inform their own approaches to the problems we face.

Jacques Jonker

Cape Town

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an e-mail with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by e-mail to letters@businesslive.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.