Science of Morality

[shunyadragon]

It seems this question has quite a bit of controversy for both Atheist and Christians. Arguments from both sides reject that there can be an objective morality, Christians reject a science of morality without God to define give morals a objective standard. Other atheist and agnostics argue that good is relative and that what is good or moral for one person is different for someone else. I reject both of these claims to argue that morality is based on the suffer vs well-being of conscious individuals that exist on a continuum. Causing unjustified suffering among a conscious individual is the definition of an immoral action.

I have long objected to morals and ethics being described as objective nor relative. The supposed God's illusive nebulous standard of objective morality has never been adequately defined. The concept of relative morality is equally problematic, because in reality the morals and ethics is not simply what is good for one person and different for someone else. Morals and ethics are the standards of behavior in different cultures and societies, and neither objective nor subjective to the individual. They are relatively uniform with some natural variation from culture to culture, and evolve over time. What was moral and ethical three hundred or 2000 years ago may not be considered moral today. These standards evolved with humanity and can be found in primitive forms in our primate relatives and even other intelligent mammals.

[AlecWelsh]

I have long objected to morals and ethics being described as objective nor relative. The supposed God's illusive nebulous standard of objective morality has never been adequately defined. The concept of relative morality is equally problematic, because in reality the morals and ethics is not simply what is good for one person and different for someone else. Morals and ethics are the standards of behavior in different cultures and societies, and neither objective nor subjective to the individual. They are relatively uniform with some natural variation from culture to culture, and evolve over time. What was moral and ethical three hundred or 2000 years ago may not be considered moral today. These standards evolved with humanity and can be found in primitive forms in our primate relatives and even other intelligent mammals.

I agree that what people determined as morals back then is different from now, but I would argue that they improved. The point of morality I would argue is no different than the point of good health. There is in fact a healthy standard of living over time we could argue it has improved given that we live longer. Instead of working towards eating healthier, exercising and fighting off illnesses, a moral standard would be based on the equal opportunity for sentient individuals to find well-being, and to not causes unjust suffering.

[seer]

No the history of man kind is that over time we worked together and gained better morals. Scientifically speaking working together is better than working alone. Since we are discussing individuals and not societies and tribes, it is clear that as an individual human working against society man have sort term benefits and even long term seemingly, but it is by definition easier to work with a group than against it. Humans need social cooperation we are biologically dependent on human interaction at birth. If you can make the argument that living alone produces the same quality of life without interacting with society you are free to try. Given that at birth you are dependent on humans you have an uphill battle.

I have no idea what you are taking about. The Europeans come to North American, displace or kill the Natives - take their lands and prosper greatly. And I'm not just speaking of individuals. I'm speaking of mankind as we find it.

[AlecWelsh]

I have no idea what you are taking about. The Europeans come to North American, displace or kill the Natives - take their lands and prosper greatly. And I'm not just speaking of individuals. I'm speaking of mankind as we find it.

Around the world slavery has been reduced, Civil rights are growing like among Woman and gays, how long has it been since we have had a nuclear bomb go off? Homicides over time have been reduced using court records, archaeological discoveries, oral accounts that humans are much more moral now that we were in the past. Think about it, the NFL here in America is having a controversy because of the concussions caused by the sport when in the past, sporting events were people fighting animals and other humans to the death as entertainment. We are not perfect, but we have improved our standard of morality.

[seer]

Around the world slavery has been reduced, Civil rights are growing like among Woman and gays, how long has it been since we have had a nuclear bomb go off? Homicides over time have been reduced using court records, archaeological discoveries, oral accounts that humans are much more moral now that we were in the past. Think about it, the NFL here in America is having a controversy because of the concussions caused by the sport when in the past, sporting events were people fighting animals and other humans to the death as entertainment. We are not perfect, but we have improved our standard of morality.

So what is you point? Yes, in parts of the world morality is changing, in other parts not so much. But who knows what it will be like fifty or one hundred years from now?

[shunyadragon]

I agree that what people determined as morals back then is different from now, but I would argue that they improved. The point of morality I would argue is no different than the point of good health. There is in fact a healthy standard of living over time we could argue it has improved given that we live longer. Instead of working towards eating healthier, exercising and fighting off illnesses, a moral standard would be based on the equal opportunity for sentient individuals to find well-being, and to not causes unjust suffering.

If you read my post, I argue for almost the same thing, morals and ethics have evolved and improved over time.

[shunyadragon]

So what is you point? Yes, in parts of the world morality is changing, in other parts not so much. But who knows what it will be like fifty or one hundred years from now?

As with history improved.

[AlecWelsh]

So what is you point? Yes, in parts of the world morality is changing, in other parts not so much. But who knows what it will be like fifty or one hundred years from now?

Well that your claim was wrong was my point. Hopefully in fifty or one hundred years we have improved even more.

[AlecWelsh]

If you read my post, I argue for almost the same thing, morals and ethics have evolved and improved over time.

You reject an objective standard to morality but agree it has improved over time. That logically does not fit. They couldn't improve if there was no objective standard

[seer]

Well that your claim was wrong was my point. Hopefully in fifty or one hundred years we have improved even more.

What was wrong? That we arguably just went through one of the most bloody centuries of human history?

[seer]

They couldn't improve if there was no objective standard

And where does that standard come from?

[shunyadragon]

I have no idea what you are taking about. The Europeans come to North American, displace or kill the Natives - take their lands and prosper greatly. And I'm not just speaking of individuals. I'm speaking of mankind as we find it.

Morality changes, what the Europeans did would be morally wrong today by International Law, Morals and ethics. Of course, Israel does this to the Palestinians, The Muslims do this to religious minorities in their countries today, but it is now morally and ethically wrong.

[seer]

Morality changes, what the Europeans did would be morally wrong today by International Law, Morals and ethics. Of course, Israel does this to the Palestinians, The Muslims do this to religious minorities in their countries today, but it is now morally and ethically wrong.

What an idiot...

[shunyadragon]

What an idiot...

Idiot answer . . . No response as usual.

[seer]

Idiot answer . . . No response as usual.

No, you are a typical anti-Semite... And still an idiot...