The Science of Morality

[Blues Man]

It is my contention that morality is an undeveloped scientific discipline.

It is absolutely possible to construct a moral framework using reason and the scientific method alone. There is no need to surrender the study of morality to religions especially when the divine morals of the many gods are questionable at best.

If we define a moral framework as a system of laws that maximize the well being of conscious beings on this planet we can choose the best ways to do that.

Medicine, psychology, neuroscience, sociology and other disciplines can be used to explore and question the subject of morality and I will state that we have been doing this ever since humans have been alive on this earth.

The reason the subject of morality was surrendered to religion is simple. In the past religious institutions were the power base of society. They controlled education, science, and politics and pity the person who would ever question their authority.

This is why we have religions that condoned slavery and accepted that an all knowing god could not envision a human society without slavery. It's how we get a religion that forces women to live their lives in cloth bags and denies them an education. The horrors inflicted on people because of religious morals cannot be denied.

Devout Jews no longer stone to death Jews who do not observe the Sabbath even though it states in the bible that the penalty for such a sin is death.

We have learned that hitting a child with a stick is not the best way to modify that child's behavior.

We know that slavery is the absolute worst crime against humanity.

We did not come to these realizations by submitting to the morality of religions.

If other scientific disciplines can transcend religion and cultures why can't the discipline of morality?

Cancer is cancer no matter what religion the person afflicted adheres to. Cholera is cholera and is nondenominational. Algebra is algebra regardless of the god a person kneels to.

So yes we can decide the best ways to maximize the well being of all conscious beings on this planet the same way we came to decide a treatment for a medical condition is effective.

 

[Oddball]

It is my contention that morality is an undeveloped scientific discipline.

It is absolutely possible to construct a moral framework using reason and the scientific method alone. There is no need to surrender the study of morality to religions especially when the divine morals of the many gods are questionable at best.

If we define a moral framework as a system of laws that maximize the well being of conscious beings on this planet we can choose the best ways to do that.

Medicine, psychology, neuroscience, sociology and other disciplines can be used to explore and question the subject of morality and I will state that we have been doing this ever since humans have been alive on this earth.

The reason the subject of morality was surrendered to religion is simple. In the past religious institutions were the power base of society. They controlled education, science, and politics and pity the person who would ever question their authority.

This is why we have religions that condoned slavery and accepted that al all knowing god could not envision a human society without slavery. It's how we get a religion that forces women to live their lives in cloth bags and denies them an education. The horrors inflicted on people because of religious morals cannot be denied.

Devout Jews no longer stone to death Jews who do not observe the Sabbath even though it states that the penalty for such a sin is death.
We have learned that hitting a child with a stick is not the best way to modify that child's behavior.

We know that slavery is the absolute worst crime against humanity.

We did not come to these realizations by submitting to the morality of religions.

If other scientific disciplines can transcend religion and cultures why can't the discipline of morality?

Cancer is cancer no matter what religion the person afflicted adheres to. Cholera is cholera and is nondenominational. Algebra is algebra regardless of the god a person kneels to.

So yes we can decide the best ways to maximize the well being of all conscious beings on this planet the same way we came to decide a treatment for a medical condition is effective.

Start here...

What you should know about the Non-Aggression Principle | Learn Liberty

Libertarians talk about the non-aggression principle a lot, but what does it mean?

www.learnliberty.org

 

[Blues Man]

Start here...

What you should know about the Non-Aggression Principle | Learn Liberty

Libertarians talk about the non-aggression principle a lot, but what does it mean?

www.learnliberty.org

I don't see property rights as part of the moral landscape. We can certainly respect private property and increase the well being of all conscious beings and still respect property rights.

 

[Oddball]

I don't see property rights as part of the moral landscape. We can certainly respect private property and increase the well being of all conscious beings and still respect property rights.

WTF does that even mean?

 

[Votto]

It is my contention that morality is an undeveloped scientific discipline.

It is absolutely possible to construct a moral framework using reason and the scientific method alone. There is no need to surrender the study of morality to religions especially when the divine morals of the many gods are questionable at best.

If we define a moral framework as a system of laws that maximize the well being of conscious beings on this planet we can choose the best ways to do that.

Medicine, psychology, neuroscience, sociology and other disciplines can be used to explore and question the subject of morality and I will state that we have been doing this ever since humans have been alive on this earth.

The reason the subject of morality was surrendered to religion is simple. In the past religious institutions were the power base of society. They controlled education, science, and politics and pity the person who would ever question their authority.

This is why we have religions that condoned slavery and accepted that al all knowing god could not envision a human society without slavery. It's how we get a religion that forces women to live their lives in cloth bags and denies them an education. The horrors inflicted on people because of religious morals cannot be denied.

Devout Jews no longer stone to death Jews who do not observe the Sabbath even though it states that the penalty for such a sin is death.
We have learned that hitting a child with a stick is not the best way to modify that child's behavior.

We know that slavery is the absolute worst crime against humanity.

We did not come to these realizations by submitting to the morality of religions.

If other scientific disciplines can transcend religion and cultures why can't the discipline of morality?

Cancer is cancer no matter what religion the person afflicted adheres to. Cholera is cholera and is nondenominational. Algebra is algebra regardless of the god a person kneels to.

So yes we can decide the best ways to maximize the well being of all conscious beings on this planet the same way we came to decide a treatment for a medical condition is effective.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

It is interesting listening to Darwin talk about "evil" and what is "noble". A man of science is confronted with the fact that men should not be treated as animals. As he states, animals are breed for success, and slaughtered for failure, so why should men be treated any differently? Why not just eradicate the weak and damaged gene pool, and/or remove those in society that burden society that must care for them because they cannot care for themselves?

That is the question. Should we treat mankind differently than the rest of the animal kingdom, especially when science insists man is apart of the animal kingdom and just a glorified animal?

A man like Hitler simply read the science regarding gene pools and how it was implemented with animals and murdered those in hospitals he felt were a burden to society and who may have had an inferior gene pool. Hitler dismissed notions of the existence of evil and nobility, terms for which science has little use for, and regarded it as superstitious babble.

 

[Blues Man]

WTF does that even mean?

WTF does that even mean?

“The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property.

Why include property in a discussion of morality?

 

[Votto]

WTF does that even mean?

It means he wishes to embrace atheism and Marxism at all costs, as he grapples to make sense of the real world within this worldview.

 

[Blues Man]

It means he wishes to embrace atheism and Marxism at all costs, as he grapples to make sense of the real world within this worldview.

Wrong.

property rights have nothing to do with the argument.

 

[Oddball]

“The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property.

Why include property in a discussion of morality?

As an extension of the individual.

 

[Votto]

“The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property.

Why include property in a discussion of morality?

The Left would say that owning property is immoral because we should all share it, as where those on the right would say taking property away is immoral because you purchased it, and as such, is equivalent to money.

Of course, the Left would then back pedal and say that stealing land from indigenous people was immoral, but to understand their hypocrisy you would need some level of brain function, which means they will never change their minds about this.

 

[Blues Man]

As an extension of the individual.

Is it really?

I disagree with that. I am not my car or my house.

Legal property rights have little to do with morality as I defined it.

Why do you seem to assume that property rights cannot exist in the bounds of my argument?

 

[Oddball]

The Left would say that owning property is immoral because we should all share it, as where those on the right would say taking property away is immoral because you purchased it, and as such, is equivalent to money.

Of course, the Left would then back pedal and say that stealing land from indigenous people was immoral, but to understand their hypocrisy you would need some level of brain function, which means they will never change their minds about this.

Just wait until you get a load of the Max Stirner cult.

 

[Blues Man]

The Left would say that owning property is immoral because we should all share it, as where those on the right would say taking property away is immoral because you purchased it, and as such, is equivalent to money.

Of course, the Left would then back pedal and say that stealing land from indigenous people was immoral, but to understand their hypocrisy you would need some level of brain function, which means they will never change their minds about this.

And can't that question be answered in the same way we answer other questions of science?

Why do you assume property right can;t exist under the definition of morality in the argument?

 

[Votto]

Is it really?

I disagree with that. I am not my car or my house.

Legal property rights have little to do with morality as I defined it.

Why do you seem to assume that property rights cannot exist in the bounds of my argument?

To survive you need a place to live.

To be happy, you need space to live.

To be free, you require the ability to pursue happiness.

 

[Votto]

And can't that question be answered in the same way we answer other questions of science?

Why do you assume property right can;t exist under the definition of morality in the argument?

You can't even define what is right and wrong with science as science simply studies the material universe as it is.

If you disagree, define it.

 

[Blues Man]

To survive you need a place to live.

To be happy, you need space to live.

To be free, you require the ability to pursue happiness.

Yes but what does that have to do with your property rights?

Many people live their entire lives in a home they rent but don't own does that prevent you from owning a home?

 

[Oddball]

Is it really?

I disagree with that. I am not my car or my house.

Legal property rights have little to do with morality as I defined it.

Your car and your house are products of the accumulation of the application of your faculties to nature.

Why do you seem to assume that property rights cannot exist in the bounds of my argument?

I'm assuming nothing...Your statement on the matter contradicts itself in the span of two sentences.

 

[Votto]

Yes but what does that have to do with your property rights?

Many people live their entire lives in a home they rent but don't own does that prevent you from owning a home?

Since you don't require property on which to live, tell us how you live.

 

[Blues Man]

You can't even define what is right and wrong with science as science simply studies the material universe as it is.

If you disagree, define it.

Of course you can.

Can we deicide that repeatedly raping a child is detrimental to that child's well being using medical and behavioral sciences?

Yes we can

 

[Blues Man]

Your car and your house are products of the accumulation of the application of your faculties to nature.

I'm assuming nothing...Your statement on the matter contradicts itself in the span of two sentences.

And?

Where in my argument is ownership of such things prohibited?