RE: Science and Morality

RE: Science and Morality (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

cpK69 -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 4:52:00 AM)
I don’t disagree that science can, and will, take us a long way in helping find answers to many of our problems. The thread that ‘subfever’ posted recently, offered some interesting prospects toward discoveries and inventions already at our disposal that will help immensely in alleviating many of our present environmental issues. Science has its place. That being said, even the wonders of science will not help if we do not start asking the right questions; addressing the real issues. An example of what I am referring to, stated in the video, is when the speaker says “the great problem of women’s bodies”. Excuse me? When men are incapable, or unwilling to control themselves in the presence of a woman’s body; then the incapability or unwillingness to control themselves is the problem, not the woman’s body. The ‘war on drugs’, ‘war on hunger’, ‘war on terror’… pretty much war on any inanimate object, are all examples of misdirected problem solving. If we wish to move on from our present circumstances, it is important that we learn to become honest with ourselves, and each other. In order for that to happen, we need to find a way to stop being afraid. Continuing to encourage the artificial concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’; i.e. morals, will not get us there. Kim

LadyAngelika -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 5:08:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika He didn't address capital punishment but I wonder where he would stand on that. I personally would say that it advances nothing. But that is one of those tricky issues. That and abortion. As you say, tricky issue. Locking someone in a cage for 25 years can't rank very high on the "well-being and flourishing" scale either. Many of us prefer that choice, but we prefer it because it spares us the risk of executing an innocent man, not because it follows from our consideration for the well-being and flourishing of our prisoners. So we're violating that concern either way. K. I'm not so fond of the idea of putting someone in a cage for 25 years neither. I believe it was Thomas Moore who wrote something along the lines that we put criminals in jail so we don't have to look at that side of our humanity, to see what we, as a society have created, and we can ignore the fact that it exists. One of my uncles is a criminologist who had some very far out ideas about reform and reintegration. He was very anti incarceration. The thing is, people don't want to invest the time, energy and money into it. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 5:13:10 AM)
quote: I think the answer is not, as he frames it, they are sometimes barbarians and we are not barbarians to change their barbarism, but rather -- they are barbarians, we are barbarians, what now? Where will our abilities, scientific and cultural, take us? I actually didn't see him framing an us and them debate. I think he actually balanced it out quite nicely. I felt the issue he rose was that when we let dogma only dictate our morals and values and we don't cross check it against a notion of "well-being and flourishing" of humanity, we have an issue. - LA

Vendaval -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 9:49:34 AM)
I think that science is very necessary for the foundation of ethics; rather than relying on superstition, tradition and blind obedience to authority.

Musicmystery -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 9:55:04 AM)
Yup. All science is----after saying "Seems to be this way based on what I've seen," then say "Let's check it out and see whether that's really true." I respect a wide range of beliefs, but I've no respect for "No! You should just believe! Learning is dangerous, because it might show we're mistaken" or "I don't care that we've shown it's not true, I still believe it." Mere belief can be used to justify anything. Pretending that justification is reasonable is irrational and dangerous.

Vendaval -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 10:05:15 AM)
The ability to adapt to new information and modify theories/practices is very practical. But don't tell the flat earth society folks that. [;)]

Musicmystery -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 10:06:51 AM)
Where do you suppose they think the edge of the Earth might be?

Vendaval -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 10:15:24 AM)
The hem of a choir robe, perhaps?

Fellow -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 1:29:14 PM)
Hard to understand what the man tries to explain? He should define first what he thinks science is? It needs no explanation that life situations can be logically analyzed. His talk feels like an atheist Sunday service. Scientism can be illusive by creating false promises like religions.

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 2:05:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval The ability to adapt to new information and modify theories/practices is very practical. But don't tell the flat earth society folks that. [;)] gasp You mean the Earth isn't flat?! damn

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 2:08:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Where do you suppose they think the edge of the Earth might be? At the end?

Musicmystery -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 2:49:00 PM)
~FR~ Well! Turns out Morality IS subject to science: "Scientists have found a surprising link between magnets and morality. A person's moral judgments can be changed almost instantly by delivering a magnetic pulse to an area of the brain near the right ear, according to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." Full Story (NPR)

Thadius -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 3:00:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery ~FR~ Well! Turns out Morality IS subject to science: "Scientists have found a surprising link between magnets and morality. A person's moral judgments can be changed almost instantly by delivering a magnetic pulse to an area of the brain near the right ear, according to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." Full Story (NPR) I discovered that holding a piece of lead in a particular shape a few inches from somebody's temple can have the same effect. It is amazing the change in personality as they plead not to have the lead touch them.[8D] Cool find.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 3:55:20 PM)
Sugar isn't powder it's granular. How on earth could grace have thought she wasn't putting poising in her friends tea? maybe it's was caster sugar but you don't put that in tea. What is Thadius using to change someone's moral compass; a roofing slate, an old pipe?

LadyAngelika -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 4:18:05 PM)
For those who are interested, Sam Harris posted a follow-up commentary to the video responses on Project Reason. http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/ - LA

takemeforyourown -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 4:32:16 PM)
My first reaction to the OP was that science DOES illuminate the path to well-being for all living things. I don't think that it is a morality itself, but it does show us how best to treat ALL life.

luckydawg -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 4:43:14 PM)
Isn't "best" a subjective, hence meaningless term in a discussion of science.... How does one really determine the "best way to treat all life"?

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Science and Morality (3/29/2010 4:46:57 PM)
Science is neither good nor bad in terms of morality (on the whole) We tend to have this cute and fluffy view of what science should be instead of what it is in practice. i.e. it wasn't so long ago cosmetics were being tested on animals and people made the argument that it was necessary for the benefit of mankind, or we just didn't question if it was required. Private groups finance science and people shouldn't lose sight of that fact. It's not all for the benefit of mankind as a whole, some of it is just for the gain of certain stakeholders. When the tobacco companies were funding research into cancer they ultimately filtered the results and the scientists involved stayed quiet for fear of legal action, the same thing happens now with environmental sciences. We ultimately have to realise that people that call themselves scientists are also individuals; some are good, some are bad. Some weigh up the facts and some jump to conclusions. Obviously the aim of science is to be dispassionate about the expected outcome but we have to realise that this hinges on the ethics of the individuals involved. You don't become a good moral arbiter just by putting on a lab coat and calling yourself a scientist, this is secondary to the person you are to begin with.

NorthernGent -> RE: Science and Morality (3/30/2010 10:34:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Science is neither good nor bad in terms of morality (on the whole) Surely that is entirely inaccurate. Science is bound up with the pursuit of knowledge - the scientists of the 17th century certainly felt that the pursuit of science at the expense of 'magic' was the 'right' thing to do for the evolution of ideas and therefore the species. Science is certainly concerned with good and bad: good = empiricism; bad = abstract notions.

subfever -> RE: Science and Morality (3/30/2010 6:33:47 PM)
quote: I don’t disagree that science can, and will, take us a long way in helping find answers to many of our problems. The thread that ‘subfever’ posted recently, offered some interesting prospects toward discoveries and inventions already at our disposal that will help immensely in alleviating many of our present environmental issues. Science has its place. That being said, even the wonders of science will not help if we do not start asking the right questions; addressing the real issues. It seems to me that the issues are greed and prejudice, and their offspring of hunger, pollution, and war. The questions are... who does greed and prejudice truly serve, and why do the masses continue to support it? quote: The ‘war on drugs’, ‘war on hunger’, ‘war on terror’… pretty much war on any inanimate object, are all examples of misdirected problem solving. All treat symptoms of a larger problem. quote: If we wish to move on from our present circumstances, it is important that we learn to become honest with ourselves, and each other. In order for that to happen, we need to find a way to stop being afraid. In a world of scarcity, where we are force to compete against and feed off of each other, there will always be fear. And most have difficulty being honest with themselves when the truth challenges their identities.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125