The Science of Morality

[Dadoalex]

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.

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.

Sure they are...

You have $20 in your hand
Some guy walks up and takes your $20
You are upset because he has done you wrong.

Property rights.

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.

Do you need to be stupid on every thread?

 

[Dadoalex]

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.

Stupid.
Irrelevant to the topic.
and did i mention stupid?

 

[Dadoalex]

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.

Hmmm
People migrate with the weather.
People living in big cities are happy.
"Freedom" and happiness have nothing to do with one another.

If you own your are bound to your property
Therefore if you own you have no freedom.
Yet, owning can bring happiness.

Perhaps you should think

Before being you.

 

[Dadoalex]

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.

A favor for you...

Look up the term
Social Contract
Study and understand its meaning then get back to us.

 

[Blues Man]

Hmmm
People migrate with the weather.
People living in big cities are happy.
"Freedom" and happiness have nothing to do with one another.

If you own your are bound to your property
Therefore if you own you have no freedom.
Yet, owning can bring happiness.

Perhaps you should think
View attachment 906541
Before being you.

Happiness and well being are not the same thing.

Plenty of people are extremely well off and yet are not happy.

Property rights are at best a neutral issue in the question of morality as I defined it.

 

[Dadoalex]

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.

BULL EFFIN CRAP

Law says if a guy stands in a spot he's OK
If he stands in a spot 2 feet to the left he has committed a crime.

There's no morality in laws.
The only thing that is true about laws is they clearly demonstrate this country is little more than a feudal territory where everyone actually belongs to the state, the king.

You rob a bank
You get caught
you go to trial
It is The State vs You
Not the Bank vs you, the state.

Clearly showing the States owns all of us.

Have a nice day thinking on that.

 

[task0778]

I do not believe morality can be a science because it cannot be objectively quantified or tested. It is and always will be subjectively based.

 

[Thunderbird]

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.

Many have employed science and reason and proved to their own satisfaction that certain “inferior” or “backward” humans should be eliminated: sterilized or killed.

Please read up on Karl Pearson and Francis Galton and Margaret Sanger and H.G. Wells not to mention the Nazis and the Communists.

“Maximizing the well being of all conscious beings“ how can that be proven by science? Isn’t science a description of reality rather than a declaration of morality?

Is Ought

www.txst.edu

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason. - David Hume

And please tell me precisely which animals are “conscious beings”. And when exactly does a child in her mother’s womb become conscious?

And what exactly is “well being”? Is it the absence of suffering? Is it achievement? Is it hedonism?

Also consider: 7 Christian men or movements who helped end slavery in America

 

[Thunderbird]

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.

If Christianity never existed you would be telling us “might makes right” is the fundamental self evident principle of morality.

 

[Votto]

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?

Those who are experts in agriculture know how to grow food. That is based in science. However, they are not being allowed to grow the food they normally do. That is politics.

The Climate Cult is saying that agriculture uses too much fertilizer, so they are being told they can't grow as much. That is pseudoscience mixed with politics.

The UN says about a billion people will die of starvation next year based on, you guessed it, science.

Who should win out here? Is it people trying to grow food to feed a starving world or should we let the world starve to save the climate?

What does science have to say about this.

 

[Votto]

If Christianity never existed you would be telling us “might makes right” is the fundamental self evident principle of morality.

Might does make right.

If God was not all powerful, God's view of what is right and wrong would just be another opinion. Only when that view can be imposed is it meaningful.

Those who are atheists, for example, feel the same way, which is why they seek political office to force their views of right an wrong upon you.

Looking at God in comparison to man, it would appear man is far more forceful in implementing their views, at least in the short term.

 

[Votto]

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?

Name a law that does not take a moral stand.

You can't.

 

[Votto]

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?

Science has nothing to say about morality because science is a study of the material universe. The material universe places no value on itself, thus is indifferent.

Man is who gives scientific data value, but there is no way to objectively measure that value.

 

[Votto]

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?

 

[Votto]

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?

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?

Detrimental? Science merely observes, it makes no judgements as to what is detrimental. Science is used by those who assign the data meaning and value.

 

[Votto]

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?

 

[Thunderbird]

Might does make right.

If God was not all powerful, God's view of what is right and wrong would just be another opinion. Only when that view can be imposed is it meaningful.

Those who are atheists, for example, feel the same way, which is why they seek political office to force their views of right an wrong upon you.

Looking at God in comparison to man, it would appear man is far more forceful in implementing their views, at least in the short term.

If God was not all powerful would His view ”Love they neighbor” be any less valid?

Does God impose His morality or let us choose it?

 

[Votto]

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?

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

You need to look at the Bible in context. For example, when God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to him, on the surface, this looks immoral and insane. However, if you consider the fact that all pagan religions during that time involved child sacrifice, you would realize that Abraham would not have been shocked by the request. No, it was just business as usual. However, God stops Abraham from sacrificing his son, sending the message to him and the rest of the world that the God of Abraham was different than the pagan gods.

Put in this context, the request was a moral one so as to stop future child infanticide.

As for slavery, what does the Bible say about slavery? In ancient times, slavery was business as usual. But like child sacrifice, God attempted to bring the world up out of slavery as well as child sacrifice to the gods. First, we see Moses delivering the people of Israel from slavery, a clear indication that God views slavery as bad. God then tells the to honor the Sabbath, even slaves within the Hebrew nation, a clear indication that even slaves needed one full day of rest to contemplate their existence rather than being worked into the grave. God then allowed provisions for slaves to be freed about every 7 years, implying again that slavery is bad. Slavery from a Biblical view was a way for people to survive when down and out. You had no tribe to help sustain you in hard times, or family, then you worked for food for a number of years until you were freed and could figure things out. It was not like slavery in the South where people were treated like glorified apes and worked into the grave because they were racially inferior.

 

[Votto]

If God was not all powerful would His view ”Love they neighbor” be any less valid?

Does God impose His morality or let us choose it?

It would be less valid.

Creation is simply a reflection of the creator. For example, if you make a car it says a lot about your level of intelligence and what your values and needs are. As human beings, we are no different as love is what gives our lives meaning and purpose. As a result, the law that governs us is the law of love given to us by God. Deep down, we understand the Golden Rule, for example. That is why we will all be held to account regardless of being told about it.

 

[Votto]

Happiness and well being are not the same thing.

Plenty of people are extremely well off and yet are not happy.

Property rights are at best a neutral issue in the question of morality as I defined it.

A jail cell is the ideal utopia for Leftists.

Think about it, everything is free, cloths, food, shelter, and you are protected by the state and gun free.

The perk is that every day is gay pride day.

So, to the Left well-being supersedes happiness.

For the Left, freedom brings harm to their utopia because people may not think or do like they want them to.