01 Mar 12
Originally posted by whodeyCorrect.
So reason dictates that the current breeding practice is bad for the human species as a whole because the "weak" are allowed to live and reproduce. However, reason does not dictate that this is morally correct, or a desirable course of action?
Since when does reason or science have a say in what is moral?
When helping to make evaluations. Neither decides the overall question of what morality is. That I have already stated in an earlier post.
Science is merely studying the material universe.
Science can, and should be used for studying just about anything.
So what scientific evidence are you using to argue that there may be deleterious effects on the human race for proceeding with this eugenic utopia?
I don't understand you. What is the question again?
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't think our understanding of morals changes a whole lot. What does change quite dramatically, is who we see as being members of our 'group', and what weighting we give to a group.
So trying to recap what I think you said.
1. Morals are static they really don't change but we do so our morals views or
thoughts on what is moral are in a state of flux because we are always changing.
2. You think morals are required to live in society, but to do that more than just morals are required.
3. We don't have to follow these morals.
4. There are cheaters who don't follow rules that we don't have to follow.
5. People who don't follow these rules that we don't have to follow are immoral.
Correct.
To answer your question yes a desire to please God which has as part of His nature and guiding force love for both Him and all of those around me.
So do you see it as acting 'morally correct' or as acting 'lovingly'. There is a significant difference.
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo neither reason nor science make moral judgements but science should be used to study anything?
Since when does reason or science have a say in what is moral?
When helping to make evaluations. Neither decides the overall question of what morality is. That I have already stated in an earlier post.
Science is merely studying the material universe.
Science can, and should be used for studying just about anything.
b]
Do you see a contradiction here?
01 Mar 12
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI said "just about anything". Why do you keep misquoting me? Besides, I am not convinced that morality can be 'studied'. Its not an object or entity or process as such.
So neither reason nor science make moral judgements but science should be used to study anything?
Do you see a contradiction here?
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadUp until the thirties sanatoriums were used to house those with T.B this was not just to isolate the infected but to treat them in as restful and healthy environment as possible. I think Darwin in Whodey's post is making the argument that one evolutionary imperative i.e the survival of the fittest = the optimum strategy for survival of the species is being overridden by another i.e the social cohesion of the group = the optimum strategy for survival of the group. It can in moral terms be seen as an anti Utilitarian argument whereby the greatest good for the greatest number i.e allowing the frail and burdensome to perish is made null and void by the fact that the vast majority of people would not be happy in such a social reality.
Yet we did it for leprosy, and probably would for other infectious diseases. Its all about what the perceived threat to the collective is as opposed to the harm to the individual and how we weigh the two.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57There is also something to be said for a mixed and not entirely rational strategy when it comes to moral decisions. After these many thousands of years, we have not settled in on a stable, predictive model of morality. Trying to adjust the parameters for moral decisions that optimize the weight given to individual, group, and species, priorities, to name three "influencers," may result in a stable degree of predictability, but a stable degree of predictability might be suboptimal for all of the influencers. Or there may be subtle influencers operating at a time scale that does not show its effects in the time scales we have experienced.
Up until the thirties sanatoriums were used to house those with T.B this was not just to isolate the infected but to treat them in as restful and healthy environment as possible. I think Darwin in Whodey's post is making the argument that one evolutionary imperative i.e the survival of the fittest = the optimum strategy for survival of the species is being ...[text shortened]... void by the fact that the vast majority of people would not be happy in such a social reality.
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by JS357It would appear any moral code derived from purely rational imperatives seems doomed to failure as a force for social cohesion or individual happiness probably due to its inability to accommodate for the complexity of human emotional imperatives such as compassion and empathy.
There is also something to be said for a mixed and not entirely rational strategy when it comes to moral decisions. After these many thousands of years, we have not settled in on a stable, predictive model of morality. Trying to adjust the parameters for moral decisions that optimize the weight given to individual, group, and species, priorities, to name three ...[text shortened]... erating at a time scale that does not show its effects in the time scales we have experienced.
01 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow see, that is where you are wrong. Academia does it every day. In fact, here is an article about such discussions.
I said "just about anything". Why do you keep misquoting me? Besides, I am not convinced that morality can be 'studied'. Its not an object or entity or process as such.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/yes-we-are-serious-ethicists-defend-after-birth-abortion-argument-in-raucous-radio-interview/
In a peer reviewed academic article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, two ethicists made an argument for allowing "after-birth abortions." One of the authors, Francesca Minerva, said that after birth abortions should be permitted if parents decide that they want to prevent their child from having a difficult or painful life. One of the reasons many people abort fetuses is due to diseases or other deformaties. But, some of these disorders are not detected while the child is in the womb. She went on to say that this sentiment should also apply to healthy newborns, because some people also abort perfectly healthy fetuses for a variety of personal reasons as well.
The crux of the argument hinges around when personhood begins. Minerva's definition is:
"Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potentially persons, but neither is a 'person' in the sense of 'subject of a moral right to life'. We take 'person' to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to his or her own existence some basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to him or her."
Perhaps the most shocking or troubling aspect to the article is that this did not make too many waves academically. Apparently, this has been discussed at length for some time, and as a result, most did not raise an eyebrow this go round. I guess they seem to have some kind of obligation to push the moral envolope and "explore" various moral positions academically. I guess now what is needed is to make the general public just as callous to these arguements as those in academia have become.
02 Mar 12
Originally posted by whodeyAnd that is where you are wrong. Nothing you said in your post had anything to do with 'studying morality' it had to do with people making claims about what morality is. Not the same thing at all. And no science whatsoever was involved.
Now see, that is where you are wrong. Academia does it every day.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Mar 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57There is a rather vast literature on AI and Decision Making. I will do some research and if it is productive, open a thread on AI and moral judgements, here or on science, depending on the nature of the issues that seem to be most interesting. Of course, feel free to beat me to it.😉
It would appear any moral code derived from purely rational imperatives seems doomed to failure as a force for social cohesion or individual happiness probably due to its inability to accommodate for the complexity of human emotional imperatives such as compassion and empathy.
02 Mar 12
Originally posted by KellyJaythat's not a "trouble" with my reasoning. that's the way it is. people don't see eye to eye on everything. every single individual is the ultimate authority on what they consider to be moral or immoral.
The trouble with your reasoning is that there are a billion plus you's that do not
see eye to eye, so there isn't really an authority according to you.
Kelly
they also tend to hang around with other people who agree on enough things to make the experience tolerable.
02 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut science is involved when it comes to abortion/infanticide. After all, those that back such practices use scientific data to try and back their positions that the fetus/infant is not really a human being or has attained the right of personhood.
And that is where you are wrong. Nothing you said in your post had anything to do with 'studying morality' it had to do with people making claims about what morality is. Not the same thing at all. And no science whatsoever was involved.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Mar 12
Just interjecting this because its highly relevant, and yes I have posted it before.
&feature=channel_video_title
"Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality?"
Sam Harris(speaker) and R Dawkins (host).
1 hr 17 mins Including Q&A
Also
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2010/10/matts-superiority-of-secular-morality.html
"The Superiority of Secular Morality" by Matt Dillahunty
1 hr 18 mins Including Q&A
All of the major points of the discussion of whether and what science has to say about morality,
and how you create a secular moral system and why it's better than a religious one are covered
in these videos.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Mar 12
Originally posted by whodeyNot entirely true, some arguments discuss the development of the foetus, but many, including my 'favourites' don't.
But science is involved when it comes to abortion/infanticide. After all, those that back such practices use scientific data to try and back their positions that the fetus/infant is not really a human being or has attained the right of personhood.
One of the most potent argument to me looks like this...
http://freethoughtblogs.com/hallq/2012/02/23/the-under-rated-famous-violinist-defense-of-abortion/
02 Mar 12
Originally posted by whodeyWhether people use scientific data is irrelevant. The key questions "what constitutes a 'human being'" or "who has the right of person-hood" are not scientific questions and not questions that require 'study'.
But science is involved when it comes to abortion/infanticide. After all, those that back such practices use scientific data to try and back their positions that the fetus/infant is not really a human being or has attained the right of personhood.
Science is often involved in discussion because science tells us about the world. So if you want to discuss real world issues, it helps to know what the real world is. But that hardly means that science is necessarily involved in any discussion about the real world.
And yes, I know that you would like to lay the blame on science (because science threatens your religion, so you see it as 'the bad guy'😉, but it simply isn't justified.