Science vs Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2014, 11:02 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(02-07-2014 09:07 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  ... Wrote stuff...

Okay, my first comment, which is in a slightly flippant vein, is.

These words? I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

On a serious note... I find you are mixing metaphors and ideas willy-nilly.

What ever you are trying to get across... your word usage is not actually helping.

(02-07-2014 09:07 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  If, let's pretend, you were to have no sense of morality or worth whatsoever, regardless of the fact that you would have no value and such whatsoever towards pleasure.

Take the above small first sentence. Having 'No sense of morality' would not, in any way be connected with (OR not having) 'No value and such whatsoever towards please.

I'm pretty sure there are, in fact, people who have no moral sense but still have a sense of pleasure. The rest of society labels these kind of people 'Sociopaths' (But I may be using the wrong word to describe such behavior)

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
03-07-2014, 07:33 AM
RE: Science vs Morality
"According to science, morals are false and irrational"

Poor start and it didn't get much better, if at all. Which part of science says morals are false? Morals simply describe ways in which we can/should behave appropriately so as to not cause injury or insult to others. Most societies agree on certain aspects: don't kill, don't steal etc That doesn't make them "true" (whatever that might mean) or "false". There is certainly a degree of arbitrariness in some moral positions e.g. in some societies, owning slaves has been seen as not being immoral (of course, the slaves did not get to express their opinion); nowadays, most people see it as being unacceptable.

But if you ever get hungry, you've already produced a ton of word salad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jockmcdock's post
03-07-2014, 12:48 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
I am now going to admit something here which is that I despise my belief in pleasure being the greatest thing that defines a human being (as it makes other people who have less pleasure look inferior including me). I came to this forum because I wish others to hate on my belief as well and to try to convince me otherwise. Therefore, go ahead and address the argument I made regarding pleasure in my opening post and in my recent posts and try to convince me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2014, 01:48 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(03-07-2014 12:48 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  I am now going to admit something here which is that I despise my belief in pleasure being the greatest thing that defines a human being (as it makes other people who have less pleasure look inferior including me). I came to this forum because I wish others to hate on my belief as well and to try to convince me otherwise. Therefore, go ahead and address the argument I made regarding pleasure in my opening post and in my recent posts and try to convince me.
Have you ever noticed that pleasure to one person is not the same as pleasure to another person? These words carry in inherent semantics due to their many subjective applications. But ultimately, the term pleasure is meant as a good thing, whatever that thing is. My pleasure is in empathy. That is that I am pleased when I see others pleased and I am saddened when I see others saddened. Hence Love is the greatest thing that defines a human being. Pleasure is the goal but not at the expense of someone else's pain. We all serve Love which is why you hate the self serving aspect of pleasure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2014, 01:57 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
What do you mean by pleasure? You mean hedonistic physical pleasure? Do you mean joy? Pride? Achievement? I, and I suspect many here, put much more value into the last three than the first. And for those morality is necessary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2014, 02:09 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 05:14 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  According to science, morals are false and irrational.

Your first sentence is a massive failure. You go down hill from there. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-07-2014, 03:19 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(03-07-2014 12:48 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  I came to this forum because I wish others to hate on my belief as well and to try to convince me otherwise.

Blink

I am confused, perhaps you can rephrase this into a sentence or posit that makes sense. Are you saying you are a believer of religion and wish us to convince you it is an invalid belief? if so, which religion? which god, what the heck are you saying? If that grab bag of jumbled up words was your way of trying to posit theological morals, I have posted a paper on that very subject, search is your friend, if not, then please make your position known, and posit what you will, and perhaps we can shed some light on it.... Yes

[Image: wtx7uv.jpg]

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2014, 04:41 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
Now before I present a believable argument that supports my views on pleasure, there is no actual scientific proof that how you perceive pleasure as not being the most important defining factor of a human being nor is there any for my perception of pleasure either. But the fact that I (unlike you or anyone else) have an explanation (that is scientifically and logically believable at this point) is what makes it far more believable since, again, you do not even have such an explanation like mine to even back up your disbeliefs in the first place. Though my explanation may not have scientific proof, the fact that it is believable for what it is now would make it illogical for anyone to have no amount of belief in it whatsoever. The only way for your disbelief to be logical is, again, if you have such an explanation like mine to actually refute my argument here.

So here is my explanation:

In terms of science as well as philosophy, no amount of intelligence or great things we do in life will ever make up for a lack of pleasure because in order to have such value towards these things is to have pleasure in the first place (as pleasure is what allows us to give emotional value towards these things). So it would be illogical to say that these things have value without pleasure or that they have greater value than pleasure. Now if you were to somehow have value towards something with no pleasure, then this value would be nothing as it is nothing more than a thought. Pleasure is what gives any notion of value life and without pleasure, it would be completely dead. Therefore, pleasure is the only thing that matters and any notion of value is just a thought and nothing more. It is the processes in our own brains that give these things life. Without such a process (which would be the process of experiencing pleasure in the brain), then they will have no life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2014, 05:28 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
You're still not being very clear. There are monks who deny all physical pleasures as well as worldly achievement to reach spiritual purity and be closer to God/nirvana/whatever. The quest gives them a great deal of satisfaction. Perhaps not the endorphin pleasure of a cheeseburger or sex (although this is debatable, IIRC these people do experience special brain chemistry) but an emotional satisfaction due to the fulfillment of their values. This is not contrary to morality but in line with it.

Really I don't think I understand what your argument is exactly. Your second paragraph looks like very fancy word salad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2014, 06:16 PM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2014 09:12 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Science vs Morality
(03-07-2014 05:28 PM)natachan Wrote:  You're still not being very clear. There are monks who deny all physical pleasures as well as worldly achievement to reach spiritual purity and be closer to God/nirvana/whatever. The quest gives them a great deal of satisfaction. Perhaps not the endorphin pleasure of a cheeseburger or sex (although this is debatable, IIRC these people do experience special brain chemistry) but an emotional satisfaction due to the fulfillment of their values. This is not contrary to morality but in line with it.

Really I don't think I understand what your argument is exactly. Your second paragraph looks like very fancy word salad.

I have translated his logic!
[Image: oix49.gif]
sounds like a big bowl of word salad Laughat

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: