Ethics and the Continuum Hypothesis

  • James Robert BrownEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Fields Institute Communications book series (FIC, volume 82)


Mathematics and ethics are surprisingly similar. To some extent this is obvious, since neither looks to laboratory experiments nor sensory experience of any kind as a source of evidence. Both are based on reason and something commonly call “intuition.” This is not all. Interestingly, mathematics and ethics both possess similar distinctions between pure and applied. I explore some of the similarities and draw methodological lessons from them. We can use these lessons to explore how and why Freiling’s refutation of the continuum hypothesis might be justified.



Thanks to Paul Bartha, Philipp Berghofer, Mark Colyvan, Rob Corless, Nic Fillion, Chris Freiling, Tom Hurka, Tracy Issacs, Mary Leng, Kathleen Okruhlik, Debbie Roberts, Zvonimir Šikić, John Sipe, Alan Sokal, and Harald Wiltsche for discussions of various issues including information about ethical intuitions and the thin-thick distinction. Thanks also to an anonymous referee who provided several useful remarks. Finally, I am grateful to various audiences who heard versions of this material, especially at the ACMES conference at The University of Western Ontario, May 12–15, 2016.


  1. 1.
    Brown JR (2017) Proofs and guarantees. Math Intell 39(4):47–50. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark-Doane (2012) Morality and mathematics. Ethics 122:313–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen P (1963) Set theory and the continuum hypothesis. W.A. Benjamin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foot P (1958) Moral arguments. Mind 67(268):502–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franklin J (2004) On the parallel between mathematics and morals. Philosophy 79:97–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freiling C (1986) Axioms of symmetry: throwing darts at the real number line. J Symb Log 51:190–200MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gödel K (1938) The consistency of the axiom of choice and the generalized continuum hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 24:556–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gödel K (1939) Consistency proof of the axiom of choice and the generalized continuum hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 25:220–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greene JD, Sommerville RB, Nystrom LE, Darley JM, Cohen JD (2001) An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293:2105–2108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hardy H (1944) A mathematician’s apology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kac M (1966) Can one hear the shape of a drum. Am Math Mon 73(4, part 2):1–23MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leibowitz UD, Sinclair N (eds) (2016) Explanation in ethics and mathematics: debunking and dispensability. Oxford University Press, OxfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leng M (2016) Naturalism and placement, or, what should a good Quinean say about mathematical and moral truth? Proc Aristot Soc cxvi, Part 3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Manin Y (2002) Georg Cantor and his heritage. arXiv:math.AG/0209244 v1Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mumford D (2000) Dawning of the age of stochasticity. In: Arnold V (ed) Mathematics: frontiers and perspectives. American Mathematical Society, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spivak M (1994) Calculus. Publish or PerishGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomson JJ (1971) A defense of abortion. Philos Public Aff 1(1):47–66Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thurston W (1994) On proof and progress in mathematics. Bull Am Math Soc 30(2):161–174MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams B (1985) Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Brown JR (1999/2008) Philosophy of mathematics: a contemporary introduction to the world of proofs and pictures, 2nd edn. Routledge, London/New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Elstein DY, Hurka T (2009) From thick to thin: two moral reduction plans. Can J Philos 39(4):5-5-536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gödel K (1951) Some basic theorems of the foundations of mathematics and their implications. Reprinted in Feferman, et al. Gödel: collected works, vol III, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  4. Gödel K (1964) What is Cantor’s continuum problem? Reprinted in Feferman et al. Gödel: collected works, vol II, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  5. Hurka T (2014) British ethical theorists from Sidgwick to Ewing. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Jaffe A, Quinn F (1993) ‘Theoretical mathematics’: toward a cultural synthesis of mathematics and theoretical physics. Bull Am Math Soc 29(1):1–13Google Scholar
  7. Moore GE (1903) Principia ethica. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Robinson JA (2000) Proof= Guarantee+ Explanation. In: Intellectics and computational logic (to Wolfgang Bibel on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 277–294Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations