[Serious] Good vs Evil

[vulcanlogician]

Thanks for the explanation! I agree that there probably are some underlying principles that can be derived from the nature of moral behaviour in social animals and people. I'm just not sure that they can be placed on the same level of absolute as, say, such physical constancs as gravitational constant or speed of light in vacuum. I view these principles as some sort of 'optimal solutions' which are only understood with respect to certain 'objective function' (group survival). However, if we speak of the society as we know it they may be pretty universal.

But there aren't really absolutes in science either. Experimental science gives us the best evidence. Theoretical science gives us the best explanation or model. Neither experimental nor theoretical science furnishes us with absolutes. Just like your statements concerning moral theory, science can be said to provide "optimal solutions."

Newton's theory of gravity is so good an explanation of the natural world, it is still taught today in Physics 101 classes... even though Einstein proved it "wrong." But Newton wasn't wrong was he? Well, technically, yes. But it is more accurate to say he was imprecise. Einstein, then, was more precise.

But "precise" in regards to what? In regards to which theory describes nature more accurately.

This can seem a rather arbitrary measure. After all, some people might not care about describing nature accurately. (Creationists, for example.) But this doesn't make science subjective, does it? No. One theory is objectively better than another. Same goes with ethical thinking. The same goes with moral deeds.

I reject the thesis that says "morality is based on group survival." Even if you and another individual were the last two beings in existence, and you were both going to die (let's say from a bomb or something), there are things that you could do to this person in the meantime that would matter as far as ethics is concerned. You could provide this person comfort during this time period, or you could tie this person up and subject them to horrible torture until the bomb exploded. Both of these activities have an ethical dimension, but neither relates to "group survival" since you both are sure to die.

The scientist asks (rather arbitrarily) "How can I best describe nature?" And in pursuit of the answer to this question, he finds objective truths. The ethicist asks (rather arbitrarily) "How can I act for the good of living beings?" And in pursuit of this question, he also finds objective truths. Neither science nor ethics is easy. They are both very complicated.

Just like there are people who want to oversimplify science by citing Genesis, there are people who want to oversimplify ethics by citing imaginary stone tablets. This makes neither science nor ethics "a matter of opinion" or subjective in any way. There is a real and true solution out there. You just have to want to discover it, and be willing to do the necessary work.

Nothing "forces" people to recognize objective morals... but (let me mention the creationists again) nothing "forces" people to acknowledge scientific fact. None of this matters. If everyone on the planet was a flat earther, the world would still be spherical.