This example actually proves my point. Despite what a few greedheads and morons say, there is a scientific consensus that global warming is real and dangerous. Even though science is sometimes wrong, It is better to rely on our experts and collective wisdom—but only when there is actual consensus amongst our experts and collective wisdom. There is no such consensus on the big philosophical questions. That doesn’t mean that all questions on which there is no consensus are philosophical, nor that the line between the two is easily drawn. Some ethical assumptions, such as the value of freedom and autonomy, are involved in deciding that murder should be illegal. But those ethical assumptions are built on the assumption that the ideal society has to separate moral questions from legal ones, and leave the former to individual choice. People can’t make those kinds of choices if they have to live in fear of murder and theft.
I deal with this distinction at much greater length in this paper on distinguishing theological issues from scientific ones in the Darwin controversy. I don’t think either side does a very good job of distinguishing these two, so I do my best to draw the line more clearly.
