Science vs Morality

[Mister Agenda]

The OP should probably stop using the term 'scientific fact' since they clearly have no clue what it means.

[Mozart Link]

Loosing all pleasure in life would be horrific. Loosing all intelligence would be horrific. Your point?

No, losing all pleasure in life would be MUCH more horrific than losing all parts of your brain combined. Since losing pleasure is the worst thing, then that obviously means this is the best part of the brain and for you to lose that would indeed make you an "inferior" person.

[Cato]

This is ridiculous. If you're going to champion a form of hedonism it might help if you at least familiarize yourself with the conversation that's been going on for the last two millenia.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/

Your assertions are baseless. Consider this scenario...

Imagine yourself seated with a bowl of ice cream staring at your five year old salivating daughter. Your idea suggests that you are less of a person if you share your ice cream. The absurdity of your claim should now be obvious.

[Jenny A]

Loosing all pleasure in life would be horrific. Loosing all intelligence would be horrific. Your point?

No, losing all pleasure in life would be MUCH more horrific than losing all parts of your brain combined. Since losing pleasure is the worst thing, then that obviously means this is the best part of the brain and for you to lose that would indeed make you an "inferior" person.

Why is losing pleasure the worst thing? You keep saying it is, but not why it is. And if it is, why does having more pleasure make you a better a person? As opposed to just a happier one?

And given just how horrible it would be to loose either all your pleasure in life or all your intellectual faculties, I fail to see how a comparison between the two possibilities is relevant. Either one would ultimately be fatal. All pleasure no intellect would lead to starvation or death by bus shortly. All intellect no pleasure might lead to the same.

[Mozart Link]

This is ridiculous. If you're going to champion a form of hedonism it might help if you at least familiarize yourself with the conversation that's been going on for the last two millenia.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/

Your assertions are baseless. Consider this scenario...

Imagine yourself seated with a bowl of ice cream staring at your five year old salivating daughter. Your idea suggests that you are less of a person if you share your ice cream. The absurdity of your claim should now be obvious.

You are free to help others if you desire. But human morals are just something beneficial to survival and it doesn't need to be frowned upon if someone else has no interest in helping others because it is perfectly scientifically natural for some people to have no desire in helping others.

No, losing all pleasure in life would be MUCH more horrific than losing all parts of your brain combined. Since losing pleasure is the worst thing, then that obviously means this is the best part of the brain and for you to lose that would indeed make you an "inferior" person.

Why is losing pleasure the worst thing? You keep saying it is, but not why it is. And if it is, why does having more pleasure make you a better a person? As opposed to just a happier one?

And given just how horrible it would be to loose either all your pleasure in life or all your intellectual faculties, I fail to see how a comparison between the two possibilities is relevant. Either one would ultimately be fatal. All pleasure no intellect would lead to starvation or death by bus shortly. All intellect no pleasure might lead to the same.

Losing all your pleasure would be worse than death. For example, people with severe depression would decide that to have their lives ended would be much better even if they were to have the greatest intelligence in the world combined with the greatest function of all other areas of their brain and being able to do great things in their lives.

[Cato]

You are free to help others if you desire. But human morals are just something beneficial to survival and it doesn't need to be frowned upon if someone else has no interest in helping others because it is perfectly scientifically natural for some people to have no desire in helping others.

When did this become a discussion about survival? You claimed that a person with less pleasure was less of a person. I demonstrated how this isn't the case.

Also, randomly dropping derivations of the word science into your assertions doesn't make them any more plausible. You have yet to provide anything remotely resembling science to support your claims.

[LostLocke]

Losing all your pleasure would be worse than death. For example, people with severe depression would decide that to have their lives ended would be much better even if they were to have the greatest intelligence in the world combined with the greatest function of all other areas of their brain and being able to do great things in their lives.

How much 'pleasure' do you think Stephen Hawking is capable of experiencing?

[GrandizerII]

Define what you mean by "pleasure", OP.

[Mudhammam]

You are free to help others if you desire. But human morals are just something beneficial to survival and it doesn't need to be frowned upon if someone else has no interest in helping others because it is perfectly scientifically natural for some people to have no desire in helping others.

Unless that person is living in a cave and has absolutely no use for society, than yeah, it's completely appropriate to frown upon people who use the resources others have made available and do nothing to contribute. We call those people sluggards, free-loaders.

[LostLocke]

Define what you mean by "pleasure", OP.

That which pleases......




sorry