Science vs Morality

[Mudhammam]

*sigh*

Losing all of any kind of brain function is often fatal. What about losing the part of your brain that handles involuntary systems like heart beat? Instant death. Heart beat is the most superior function of the brain.

Nonsense of course. But just as logical or illogical as yours.

Death itself is not a horrible experience because you experience nothing when dead. But as for the experience that leads to death (your heart shutting down and such), losing all of your pleasure is the absolute worst experience you can have and is worse than any other such horrible experience. Again, as I just stated, it is common sense and you do not need to have any knowledge or value whatsoever towards pleasure and such to know this.

And so worst possible experience equals devaluation of person's ontology how?

[Polaris]

Science is contrary to morality. From what I have seen, being moral is contrary to natural law. It's something humans had to adopt when they decided to develop cities.

[Jenny A]

Science is contrary to morality. From what I have seen, being moral is contrary to natural law. It's something humans had to adopt when they decided to develop cities.

Umm? Just what is it about humans needing to adopt morality to live in groups that makes it unnatural?

[Mudhammam]

Science is contrary to morality. From what I have seen, being moral is contrary to natural law. It's something humans had to adopt when they decided to develop cities.

No. Even animals exhibit a sense of morality. It's completely natural. I'd say civilization was almost a predictable development considering the evolution of the human brain and its specialized propensity for structure and order, including systems of morality that became increasingly refined.

[Polaris]

Science is contrary to morality. From what I have seen, being moral is contrary to natural law. It's something humans had to adopt when they decided to develop cities.

Umm? Just what is it about humans needing to adopt morality to live in groups that makes it unnatural?

Living in groups is not the same as living in cities.

[Jenny A]

Umm? Just what is it about humans needing to adopt morality to live in groups that makes it unnatural?

Living in groups is not the same as living in cities.

So? Morality or at least rules for getting along with each other develop in most social species. That we create and use more of them in cities is not surprising or unnatural.

Or do you think just because humans do it in an exaggerated way, it's unnatural?

[Bibliofagus]

Being moral is contrary to natural law.

Thank you.
Now I'm afraid natural police will give me a ticket

[Polaris]

Living in groups is not the same as living in cities.

So? Morality or at least rules for getting along with each other develop in most social species. That we create and use more of them in cities is not surprising or unnatural.

Or do you think just because humans do it in an exaggerated way, it's unnatural?

It's been suggested that city life was actually detrimental to the first humans who decided to make the change in their lifestyle. We don't know the exact reason why the change was made.

[Jenny A]

It's been suggested that city life was actually detrimental to the first humans who decided to make the change in their lifestyle. We don't know the exact reason why the change was made.

And that would make it natural or unnatural?

Applied to humans those are loaded terms and not really very descriptive.

[Mister Agenda]

Science is contrary to morality. From what I have seen, being moral is contrary to natural law. It's something humans had to adopt when they decided to develop cities.

It's not contrary, it's indifferent, like plumbing. It's only about what works. Science can help us be more moral if that's what we want, but it can't tell us to want it.

---

It's been suggested that city life was actually detrimental to the first humans who decided to make the change in their lifestyle. We don't know the exact reason why the change was made.

Maybe the suggestion is wrong. Or maybe it's right, and city life began as some sort of misfire of our natural urge to congregate which evolved under conditions in which cities were impossible. How does that bear on morality?