Use the Scientific Method to Prove Something is Absolutely "Moral" or "Immoral"

[Tiassa]

Prodigious and princely elephant droppings!

Mr. Wong:

It goes deeper than "mere" reproductive success. We humans are smarter than that. Well, in theory. Or so people claim. Er, something like that. We're supposed to be smarter than that.

The heritage of morality comes from roots dubiously exploited. We should not think of morality in archaic terms such as the religionists do. But at the same time, morality is not a fundamental principle that can be easily settled by science. Part of understanding morality comes in realizing that, as humanity itself is an unfinished endeavor, so, too, are its products. Morality is a work in progress, a drama of such extreme intricacy that we often overlook the general simplicity seemingly so apparent when we step back and attempt to view the larger picture. Constant focus on a detail might tell us what's in that couple of square inches, but it tells us little about the whole image. "It seems to be made of paint on canvas." What if there's also elephant dung, or something like that, present, but just not in a particular area detailed?

 

[Charles_Wong]

Mr. Wong:

It goes deeper than "mere" reproductive success. We humans are smarter than that. Well, in theory. Or so people claim. Er, something like that. We're supposed to be smarter than that.

The heritage of morality comes from roots dubiously exploited. We should not think of morality in archaic terms such as the religionists do. But at the same time, morality is not a fundamental principle that can be easily settled by science. Part of understanding morality comes in realizing that, as humanity itself is an unfinished endeavor, so, too, are its products. Morality is a work in progress, a drama of such extreme intricacy that we often overlook the general simplicity seemingly so apparent when we step back and attempt to view the larger picture. Constant focus on a detail might tell us what's in that couple of square inches, but it tells us little about the whole image. "It seems to be made of paint on canvas." What if there's also elephant dung, or something like that, present, but just not in a particular area detailed?

Hello,

My view of morality is based on the "physical" world, the world that we describe empirically and quantify using the Scientific Method. It is based on this philosophical point of view that I state that morality is purely subjective and better described as simply an innate drive to create arbitrary societal laws that facilitate reproductive success.

On the other hand, it appears to me that your definition is based on a spiritual philosophical world view.

So, I believe this is the basis of our discrepency.

I also believe that James R.'s view of morality is based on the religion of Ayan Randism: all humans are said to be born with intrinsic Libertarian Party rights: science cannot prove or disprove this claim, it is just true because Ayan Rand says so. These rights have a supernatural structure that man cannot study, it must just be accepted without any physical proof.

Regards.

 

[qwerty mob]

Objectivist models of consciousness and Human behavior can safely disregard tests for (or indexes of-) Human "morality" because, to a materialist (or one with a scientific world view), the most direct path from sensation to reaction is instinctive; a natural consequence of one's existence, and an often overlooked virtue of "Direct Realism."

Morality can be aptly characterized as a prescribed set of routines or behaviors within one's interpersonal repertoire (from the set of sets of one's cultural memes and mores), which acts upon their world filter, and, whereas this can be beneficial for cultural conforming, it is not nearly always so, and suffers two fatal flaws of reasoning; that such a "prescription" is preferred to creative and adaptive skills with a "cleaner" more direct world lens, and, that a conflict of cultures cannot arise, even if both share similar morality structs.

Witness the "morality" of the world's monotheisms; they look great on paper, but historically they have been so selectively followed as to be indistinguishable from mere hypocrisy.


Cheers