What can science tell us about morality?
>>991992
Morality is relative. Moral is just a electrical impuls which goes through the neurons in you brain. We are just atoms moving through time and space.
The universe doesn't give a fuck if you have killed someone. You just moved atoms.
Science is an expression of our ability to rationalize.
Our ability to rationalize is limited by the fact that we are simply monkeys able to do math.
imagine this metaphor: science is all about studying the skeleton. Your are asking "What can the skeleton tell us about the skin?" It can tell us some things, but you need a whole different way to study the skin.
if you consider philosophy and metaphysics and theology sciences, then this question is pointless. These are fields of logic and scholarly pursuits, but you can't measure most topics in these fields. you can only discuss them.
>>992053
This.
A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there’s no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?
>>992053
I say to you, if we are self aware, self repeating processes, then we come from a self aware, self repeating reality. We are just specs of self awareness, bubbling off of an unfathomably massive self awareness that understands us in so many ways that we can't even comprehend it.
saying this self awareness "cares" or "doesn't care" about us is making this self awareness too human. It's human nature to believe the human ego permeates all things, even the concept of God and the Universe, but it's false. It understands, knows, and feels everything we understand, know and feel. because we are it, and it is us.
our insignificance only allows us to measure/understand things like atoms (and we aren't just moving atoms, because atoms are composed of vibrations in space time, and our brain is basically sending vibrations across itself to create thoughts, but all of the universe is composed of these vibrations, and therefore, the cosmos IS awareness).
science is an amazing tool. but that's all it is. its like a wrench. useful in some cases, useless in others. If you use a wrench on a screw, you limit yourself. just like you are letting science limit you.
>>992084
>I say to you, if we are self aware, self repeating processes, then we come from a self aware, self repeating reality.
That's just complete assertion, it doesn't logically follow that that is true at all.
Science can show us that a lot of our every day moral decision making is intuitive or based on system 1 processes. Even decisions we think are based on deliberation are influenced by intuition/priming, and various unconscious processes. Sam Harris reaches too much.
Science can tell us everything about morality, once we agree what morality is about.
If we talk about morality as the maximizing of well-being across as wide a margin of population as possible, then science can tell us everything about it.
Morality is, in this way, completely objective.
>>991992
It is a spook.
>>991992
>what can science tell us about a spook
>>991992
Altruism is just an extension of the biological imperative of reproducing your genes.
Nothing, morality lies outside of the realm of what science deals with
>>992084
>and we aren't just moving atoms, because atoms are composed of vibrations in space time
Physicsfag here, you went completely off the rails here and got waaaaay worse from there
>>991992
Harris solved morality.
>>992053
>>992075
>>992084
>>992469
>>992476
>>992510
>All of these memes
>People still dont understand that morality is an extension of the biological imperative designed by evolution to allow for complex, stable societies to emerge and not descend into anarchy
>>992974
Evolution is an undirected and unthinking process.
It doesn't design anything.
And beyond some core elements I don't think morality is an evolutionary trait.
>>992999
>falling for the "evolution has no direction" meme too
>>992075
>structurally, there's no discernible difference
A living being is much more electrically active than a non-living being.
Aside from studying ethical behaviour in animals absolutely nothing, until it presents a complete theory of consciousness at least.
>>994131
>until it presents a complete theory of consciousness at least.
Do you need a complete theory of physics and general existence to go along with that?
>>993003
>implying the direction isn't simply adaptation to the current environment
>>994135
no
>>991992
That OP is a faggot.
>>994150
Why not?
>>992974
This, in the sense that the 'motherly instinct' might be hijacked by caring about pandas or some shit (and attributing morality to your views towards it), it's a 'misfiring' of an evolutionary trait useful for stable communal society.
>>992075
>Why should I be concerned?
Because concern regarding life is built into your biological programming.
All humans begin life with the overriding urge to continue living.
>>994166
I love physics but I don't think it can help us discover moral laws. I don't think finally figuring out how consciousness works will either, but it will be at least relevant and maybe clear some details regarding philosophy of mind etc. I just can't imagine scientific method being relevant to ethics, really. Philosophy is distinct from science precisely by the fact that it explores areas unexplorable via scientific method.
>>991992
Statistics regarding moral systems, nothing else.
>>994190
I think that while science can't give answers to morality, some area's, particularly evolutionary biology can explain some general patterns in regards to the morality people 'choose'.
>>991992
probably nothing other than to de-value it, but that's not particularly useful. Which is widely agreed upon and usually enforced with bullets and bombs.
>>994146
>falling for the origin of species by means of evolution meme
>>991992
nothing, since morality is just a human abstraction
>>994400
>nothing, since morality is just a human abstraction
And why do humans commonly make these abstractions?
>>994413
>moving the goalposts
>>994426
>What can science tell us about morality?
Why certain types of common moralities seems to make sense in terms of an evolutionary explanation.
How is that moving the goalposts?
>>994397
>Not knowing is the best argumented theory which is used wide and has a important role in understanding ourselves.
>>994445
For one example, incest is bad, makes sense in terms of avoiding deleterious recessive genes, and the same aversion is found in many other species.
