| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Science Can Answer Moral Questions https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4435 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Lenas [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Science Can Answer Moral Questions |
Discuss? |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Science Can Answer Moral Questions |
He intentionally excludes too many important factors in his analysis, and the way he causally disregards agency scares me. |
|
| Author: | Taskiss [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I got like 5 minutes into it and got bored. Did he ever finally make a case that science can answer moral questions, or did he just keep repeating that it can? |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Taskiss wrote: I got like 5 minutes into it and got bored. Did he ever finally make a case that science can answer moral questions, or did he just keep repeating that it can? He pretty much felt his way through it, disregarding things that he saw as inconvenient to his position. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't believe science can answer moral questions...although it can tell you what morals are, because we make morals up. They're a human construct to start with. There is no empirical good or evil. There is simply what we decide is good or evil. We invented morals, then we invented God to reinforce them. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmm interesting. Science at it's most basic definition is the study of knowledge. And certainly we can study what we know about how people react/interact/flourish and make hypothesis and theories about them, and then we can conduct experiments to attempt to verify or disprove those hypothesis and theories. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Science Can Answer Moral Questions |
The title of the speech is somewhat misleading. It is clear that the speaker believes that science can answer moral questions, but that is not actually the case he is making. What he's actually arguing is for an objective morality, which must necessarily be established before there can be a framework for science answering such questions. |
|
| Author: | Taskiss [ Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rorinthas wrote: Hmm interesting. Science at it's most basic definition is the study of knowledge. And certainly we can study what we know about how people react/interact/flourish and make hypothesis and theories about them, and then we can conduct experiments to attempt to verify or disprove those hypothesis and theories. Yes, but is it "right" to ... well, fill in the blank with whatever moral quandary you may choose. Abortion? The death penalty? Declaring war? Buy a SUV? I think morality issues have plenty of evidence already, and all science can do is add to the wealth of evidence that already exists. Point a gun, pull a trigger... ending a life is pretty cut and dried, evidence wise. So, lets say that some genetic quirk increases the propensity of violence. Should folks be absolved of responsibility then, or should society insist on genetic or psychological modification? More information doesn't make the real moral questions easier to answer, and can easily make them more difficult to resolve. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
"Morality" simply represents rules we have created as a society to help us function as a social unit. Humans are social, herd creatures, yet unlike bees, we have no hive-like behavior, and there isn't necessarily a clear pecking order like develops in a wolf-pack (or at least, we have learned settling pecking orders the way wolves do is not in our best interests.) If killing was objectively evil, then we'd have evidence that all sorts of animals were evil. But they simply do what comes naturally to themselves. We are just animals. We may be more intelligent than most in some ways, we may have learned to adapt our environment to ourselves rather than ourselves to our environment, but ultimately, we are just animals. Natural selectino may very well may have imprinted certain behavioral imperatives in a general way that causes us to tend toward a few common moral principles, but that doesn't make them absolute. It just makes them what we accept. As we continue to evolve, those moral principles change--and even now they vary from culture to culture. In a thousand years, the people who live then will likely consider those of us who lived now as uncultured barbarians, with horrendous moral deficiencies. Things we take or granted as normal and acceptable will be attrocities to them, and philosophers will debate whether or not it's fair to judge us here in the past by the standards of that future time. Do you think not? What do you think of slavery? Racism? Sexism? Even a scant two centuries ago you'd get different answers to those questions from normal, everyday people than you get now. It may not even be fair to say we've evolved past ancient morality. Who's to say we're better? Well, we are, of course, and since we're alive and they're dead, they're not going to contradict us. But how does that in any way make it absolute? |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
We're evolved worms. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|