12 edits
Originally posted by @joe-shmoOK.
" scientific ethical code" can be literally translated as an ethical code for the application of science.
So the problem isn't one of science but one of defining that ethical code.
What about it?
I was asking you what you meant by "good" and "evil", and how you came to understand those terms.
What I mean by "good" and "evil" has nothing to do with science and is subjective and all tied up in emotions and perceptions and hard to define so I don't try to. The best I can do is to merely give examples of what I feel is good and evil. I would say using science to make warfare gas or murdering someone because they don't agree with your religion feels 'evil' to me while using science to cure horrible diseases feels 'good' to me etc but I don't think 'good' and 'evil' can be defined or at least not in an objective way. Can YOU define 'good' and 'evil' or are you saying those words are nonsense words or what, exactly?
Originally posted by @humyYou used the words "good" and "evil" to describe various applications of science. I wonder what you mean, and how you came to understand those terms?
OK.
So the problem isn't one of science but one of defining that ethical code.
What about it?
2 edits
Originally posted by @humyFirst you give us your personal feelings on what is good and evil that is devoid of science and religion and then ask us how we base our moral compass?
OK.
So the problem isn't one of science but one of defining that ethical code.
What about it?
I was asking you what you meant by "good" and "evil", and how you came to understand those terms.
What I mean by "good" and "evil" has nothing to do with science and is subjective and all tied up in emotions and perceptions and hard to defin ...[text shortened]... YOU define 'good' and 'evil' or are you saying those words are nonsense words or what, exactly?
You already know what we base our moral compass on, now what do you base yours on?
Why is it wrong to murder a bunch of people with WMD's?
Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace. (Oscar Wilde)
So where do you draw your lines?
12 edits
Originally posted by @whodey
First you give us your personal feelings on what is good and evil that is devoid of science and religion and then ask us how we base our moral compass?
You already know what we base our moral compass on, now what do you base yours on?
Why is it wrong to murder a bunch of people with WMD's?
Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace. (Oscar Wilde)
So where do you draw your lines?
and then ask us how we base our moral compass?
He asked me first. He was the one that brought this up, not me. For some reason, he asked me this, so why shouldn't I be allowed to ask the same question back to him? I honestly don't understand your complaint.
what do you base yours on?
I have already addressed this; see my last post.
But to elaborate and clarify;
It has nothing to do with science or religion. It is based on personal empathy, sympathy, compassion and an innate sense of fairness; so basically it is based on personal emotions. I am surprised you didn't seem to already know this because this is what most NORMAL people base their morality on. SERIOUSLY; What did you THINK my morality was based on? -I honestly cannot imagine.
Originally posted by @sonhouseI'd vote to get rid of the old people. Most are retired and just suck up precious health care dollars. And what about all the animals? There's way more ants than people. Get rid of them. There's over a billion cows on the planet. What are those for? And don't even get me started on birds? What are they doing up there? Just flying around? Get to work, you bums.
The immediate problem is there are WAY too frigging many humans on Earth. Cut them down 90% and most all the problems we face now are gone. And. BTW, religions are far worse, since they are hypocrites.
🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by @whodeyWhat's the more well known phrase: Science war or holy war?
Religion tells us how we should treat our fellow man and relate to God. Would you agree that most do not adhere to the example of Christ?
Conversely, science empowers us over the material universe. There are no standards set as to then treat our fellow man with such power and knowledge.
I would think that those who focus only on the material aspect o ...[text shortened]... eir time with spiritual teachings such as telling others to love their fellow man as themselves.
Science is a methodology. It is a way of approaching and solving a problem. If you think "Science" boils down to a bunch of nerds laughing at spirituality then you're sadly mistaken. We are often spiritual, introspective and reverent. Good scientists take time to think about their personal ethics and morality (Remember Darwin?). They are not as good at talking about spirituality as a preacher is, but they do it nevertheless.
It is blatantly unfair to foist the weight of societal problems on science. Yes, the atomic bomb was conceived and built using the scientific method, but science did not start WWII. Hitler did that. Cars were invented by scientists too. Are you planning to scapegoat science for all deaths resulting from motor vehicle accidents? Or does the fault lie in the car's operator?
No war was ever waged using science as a justification. Yet how many people have died because of organized religion?
Originally posted by @humyI can't define them objectively either, but I know them when I see them in extremes...I think, but I certainly can't be sure?...However, that doesn't solve the problem. Who's subjective views on "good"and "evil" are we to follow when it comes to the application of science? Yours,mine,whodeys,Eladar, Shallow Blue, wildgrass...?
OK.
So the problem isn't one of science but one of defining that ethical code.
What about it?
I was asking you what you meant by "good" and "evil", and how you came to understand those terms.
What I mean by "good" and "evil" has nothing to do with science and is subjective and all tied up in emotions and perceptions and hard to defin ...[text shortened]... YOU define 'good' and 'evil' or are you saying those words are nonsense words or what, exactly?
1 edit
Originally posted by @humyBut how did you know that empathy, compassion, sympathy...are good, as opposed to other human emotions and instincts like ego, envy, anger, greed, self preservation...and then ask us how we base our moral compass?
He asked me first. He was the one that brought this up, not me. For some reason, he asked me this, so why shouldn't I be allowed to ask the same question back to him? I honestly don't understand your complaint.what do you base yours on?
I have already addressed this; ...[text shortened]... orality on. SERIOUSLY; What did you THINK my morality was based on? -I honestly cannot imagine.
If you don't search yourself to answer this, your not thinking about it objectively, or your in denial.
Originally posted by @humyLook at Mr. Original over here.
why have you a need to follow someone's else's morality rather than, like me and independent thinkers, formulate your own?
Please: no one is blazing new trails here, least of all you and your inarticulate code of conduct.
You've done nothing new, nor unique.
You simply eliminated God and then worked doubly hard to manufacture some nebulous result-oriented standard which approximates the organic and natural production of a life so informed.
It's the not-God god.
Originally posted by @wildgrassScience is like the US government arming Iraq and Iran to wage holy war with each other.
What's the more well known phrase: Science war or holy war?
Science is a methodology. It is a way of approaching and solving a problem. If you think "Science" boils down to a bunch of nerds laughing at spirituality then you're sadly mistaken. We are often spiritual, introspective and reverent. Good scientists take time to think about their personal eth ...[text shortened]... d using science as a justification. Yet how many people have died because of organized religion?
Disgusting.
Originally posted by @humyIt sounds to me that you have adopted the Golden Rule given to us by Jesus Christ, which is to do unto others as you would have them do to you.and then ask us how we base our moral compass?
He asked me first. He was the one that brought this up, not me. For some reason, he asked me this, so why shouldn't I be allowed to ask the same question back to him? I honestly don't understand your complaint.what do you base yours on?
I have already addressed this; ...[text shortened]... orality on. SERIOUSLY; What did you THINK my morality was based on? -I honestly cannot imagine.
Is that correct?
Originally posted by @humyIt seems to me that everyone does harm to their fellow human being in some form or capacity.
why have you a need to follow someone's else's morality rather than, like me and independent thinkers, formulate your own?
Why is that? Is that their morality or are they going against their internal moral compass?
2 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhby independently thinking, certainly not; and I never claimed I did. I have news for you; MOST people at least occasionally think independently.
You've done nothing new, nor unique.