Get Layd Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 I used to think that science couldn't answer questions about morality but after watching the video above I'm kinda leaning the other way. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pe Pe Toads Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 24 minutes nope. i think science can be used for many things, but i dont really understand why we need science for morals, as most people can see the wrong in certain things, but dont stop it or rebel against it because of culture, religion, physical limitations or their own well-being unfortunately as well some people dont see the wrongs, but saying science determined morals wont do anything to combat it i didnt watch it, but please tell me why we need it exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Get Layd Posted May 15, 2015 Author Share Posted May 15, 2015 24 minutes nope. i think science can be used for many things, but i dont really understand why we need science for morals, as most people can see the wrong in certain things, but dont stop it or rebel against it because of culture, religion, physical limitations or their own well-being unfortunately as well some people dont see the wrongs, but saying science determined morals wont do anything to combat it i didnt watch it, but please tell me why we need it exactly? The video can explain why a lot better than I can. I would really encourage you to watch it. In essence having science answer these moral questions would give morality objectivity. It would lead to a universal moral moral truth that would help prevent a lot of conflict in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curly Brace Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Morality is subjective and the idea of a global/universal morality will never happen. It's not that science can't "explain" morality, it's that it isn't its place to do so. People get their morals through their personal feelings and how empathetic they are, not through some imaginary deity or a book someone reads, although they may be influenced by the idea of it. >"this is a factual claim, this is something we could be right or wrong about" - 1:55 Even if we were wrong about insects not having a deeper connection with experience, it wouldn't matter as we don't spend the time to observe what the ant is feeling right before it is killed. Apes and other larger animals show expressions of emotion, which is easily visible to humans, thus we can relate to them easier. >"and we know that there are right and wrong answers" Incorrect. Humans are moral creatures, yes, but due to morality being subjective, you cannot apply "right" and "wrong" to any moral question. - 3:22 >"So in talking about values, we are talking about facts" - 3:56 There's no need to even watch further on if this is how he's going to handle his case. He's building an argument up upon an incorrect claim, and furthering himself from there. There is no absolute when it comes to morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pe Pe Toads Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Morality is subjective and the idea of a global/universal morality will never happen. It's not that science can't "explain" morality, it's that it isn't its place to do so. People get their morals through their personal feelings and how empathetic they are, not through some imaginary deity or a book someone reads, although they may be influenced by the idea of it. >"this is a factual claim, this is something we could be right or wrong about" - 1:55 Even if we were wrong about insects not having a deeper connection with experience, it wouldn't matter as we don't spend the time to observe what the ant is feeling right before it is killed. Apes and other larger animals show expressions of emotion, which is easily visible to humans, thus we can relate to them easier. >"and we know that there are right and wrong answers" Incorrect. Humans are moral creatures, yes, but due to morality being subjective, you cannot apply "right" and "wrong" to any moral question. - 3:22 >"So in talking about values, we are talking about facts" - 3:56 There's no need to even watch further on if this is how he's going to handle his case. He's building an argument up upon an incorrect claim, and furthering himself from there. There is no absolute when it comes to morality. i agree with you, morality is defined by those who experience it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CUD Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I can't say I disagree with this video. Science answering moral questions in an objective way would only serve to better humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.