The Science of Morality

[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?

Owning land is like renting from the government via taxation on that land.

There is no real difference. You are continually charged for it to live there. You bought it.

I suppose the one difference between owning and renting is you have more freedom with your property and more than likely save more money in the process, which the Left abhors. The Left wants us all destitute and completely dependent upon government and no real freedoms.

Freedom for the Left is equated with such things as pollution, waste, and possible bad decision making. Why allow it? Just take all their freedoms. In fact, they tell us now they must take all our freedoms or the planet will die via carbon emissions.

 

[Blues Man]

Owning land is like renting from the government via taxation on that land.

There is no real difference.

That's a matter of law not morality. You knew the tax laws before you bought your land

 

[Oddball]

And?

Where in my argument is ownership of such things prohibited?

It's not prohibited, yet there's no right to it?

 

[Votto]

Why Europeâs farmers are protesting â and the far right is taking note

For some farmers already struggling, paying for more of their pollution is a step too far. Germany is the latest country to see anger boil over

www.theguardian.com

Farmers around the world are protesting the climate cult that has infected all governments around the world. Farmers are literally being told not to grow as much ON THEIR OWN LAND to limit carbon emissions.

Meanwhile, the UN says about a billion people will die from starvation next year.

Morality meets science, GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For me, this is equivalent to Hitler taking the very sick in hospitals to kill them for the good of mankind.

And yes friends, it is all based on science.

The only difference is, this genocide is on a much larger scale today and there is literally no opposition to it around the world other than angry farmers.

 

[Oddball]

Owning land is like renting from the government via taxation on that land.

There is no real difference. You are continually charged for it to live there. You bought it.

Property taxes are legalized extortion.

 

[Blues Man]

It's not prohibited, yet there's no right to it?

We don't have property rights?

I didn't make a list of rights did I?

The argument is that we can treat morality like we do other scientific disciplines and we can decide without surrendering to religion what is the best course to increase the well being of all conscious beings.

 

[Votto]

Property taxes are legalized extortion.

Marxists gotta Marxist.

If you don't tax them, the actually own it.


You can't have that, now can you.

 

[Blues Man]

Why Europeâs farmers are protesting â and the far right is taking note

For some farmers already struggling, paying for more of their pollution is a step too far. Germany is the latest country to see anger boil over

www.theguardian.com

Farmers around the world are protesting the climate cult that has infected all governments around the world. Farmers are literally being told not to grow as much ON THEIR OWN LAND to limit carbon emissions.

Meanwhile, the UN says about a billion people will die from starvation next year.

Morality meets science, GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For me, this is equivalent to Hitler taking the very sick in hospitals to kill them for the good of mankind.

And yes friends, it is all based on science.

And what does this have to so with the OP?

Can we not by reason decide what are better ways of treating people or do we have to surrender that decision to a religion?

What does religion have to say about farming that you think is better than agricultural science?

 

[Blues Man]

Marxists gotta Marxist.

If you don't tax them, the actually own it.


You can't have that, now can you.

Off topic

 

[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.

Square that circle.

 

[Blues Man]

Square that circle.

You are assuming that the 2 are incompatible

It's up to you to prove that not me.

 

[Oddball]

You are assuming that the 2 are incompatible

It's up to you to prove that not me.

I made no such assumption....If you have a right to property, then there's morality involved as a matter of course.

 

[Blues Man]

I made no such assumption....If you have a right to property, then there's morality involved as a matter of course.

I don't see property ownership as a moral issue. It's a matter of law certainly.

You can own property and not be harming the well being of another person can't you?

 

[Votto]

Off topic

How so? Every law has an element of morality to it, whether it is good for society or bad for society. Taxes are apart of the moral stance.

It is YOU who now demand the field of science must be included, even though it has nothing to do with morality.

But the reason you feel compelled to include morality in science, as if pounding a square object through a round hole, is because you pride yourself on understanding the world via science.

God forbid the world is more complex than the material universe and what you can learn from science, cuz that just gives you the willies.

 

[Oddball]

I don't see property ownership as a moral issue. It's a matter of law certainly.

You can own property and not be harming the well being of another person can't you?

A mater of law, without some sort of guiding moral principle behind it?

You're making as big a contradiction of argumentation as any of the Max Stirner cult.

Fuck this, I'm out....Have a nice day.

 

[Votto]

I don't see property ownership as a moral issue. It's a matter of law certainly.

You can own property and not be harming the well being of another person can't you?

Was the fact that Indians were forced off their land a moral issue?

How about people being evicted because they can no longer afford, rent/taxation?

 

[Votto]

A mater of law, without some sort of guiding moral principle behind it?

You're making as big a contradiction of argumentation as any of the Max Stirner cult.

Fuck this, I'm out....Have a nice day.

Too much weed in the past I think.

 

[Dadoalex]

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.

I think the "Golden Rule" is all one needs to know about morality.

"Do unto others..." etc.

Do you want
to be wrongly imprisoned
stolen from
lied to
beaten for no reason
raped...

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
or
"Be good for goodness sake"

No gods required.

 

[Blues Man]

How so? Every law has an element of morality to it, whether it is good for society or bad for society. Taxes are apart of the moral stance.

It is YOU who now demand the field of science must be included, even though it has nothing to do with morality.

But the reason you feel compelled to include morality in science, as if pounding a square object through a round hole, is because you pride yourself on understanding the world via science.

God forbid the world is more complex than the material universe and what you can learn from science, cuz that just gives you the willies.

I disagree with that statement.

Many laws have no element of morality. Most laws are there for control not moral purposes.

And why do you insist that science has nothing to say on morality?

I'll reference you to my earlier question which you didn't answer.

Can we use medical, behavioral and child developmental sciences to come to an agreement that the repeated rape of children is detrimental to their physical and mental well being? Is that not a question of morality?

If not who do we look to for a moral judgment on that? Religion?

What about slavery? The Christian god did not say slavery was a moral sin so would you condone slavery today?

We as thinking conscious beings came to that moral conclusion did we not?

 

[Blues Man]

A mater of law, without some sort of guiding moral principle behind it?

You're making as big a contradiction of argumentation as any of the Max Stirner cult.

Fuck this, I'm out....Have a nice day.

What moral principle would that be?

How does you legal right to own property diminish the well being of anyone? I can't see how it does.

I have not made that argument but you seem to think I did.