Science vs Morality

[Jenny A]

Why does having more pleasure make you a better a person or more human? As opposed to just a happier one?

My dog is plenty happy most of the time. More often than I am in fact. But she sure isn't more human.

[Mozart Link]

Why does having more pleasure make you a better a person or more human? As opposed to just a happier one?

My dog is plenty happy most of the time. More often than I am in fact. But she sure isn't more human.

Having more pleasure would make you a more superior living thing.

[GrandizerII]

Define what you mean by "pleasure", OP.

That which pleases......




sorry

If this is science he's talking, then an operational definition for the construct would be necessary for a start. Not to mention, of course, empirical evidence which he hasn't provided yet.

[Jenny A]

Why does having more pleasure make you a better a person or more human? As opposed to just a happier one?

My dog is plenty happy most of the time. More often than I am in fact. But she sure isn't more human.

Having more pleasure would make you a more superior living thing.

WHY?

And if so, you better start kowtowing to otters, because I think they are the happiest beings on the planet.

[LostLocke]

Having more pleasure would make you a more superior living thing.

Ah, there we go.

In science there is no such thing as a 'more superior living thing'. So, you're either making this up from your own opinion, or your "science" sources aren't doing science.

[downbeatplumb]

It's a scientific fact that people who have all the pleasure in the world with a sense of superiority are better people than those who are depressed and humble. If you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person according to science because who you are is your brain and all of its processes and also the fact that greater is "better" when it comes to science. If, for example, you have a computer that has greater RAM and such than others' computers, then your computer would be better than their computers. Therefore, if you have a mind that has greater activity and capabilities, that makes you a better person. But as for someone who has greater intelligence than someone who has greater pleasure, the scientific fact is that pleasure is the greatest thing above any function in the brain because our personal experience of this emotion obviously says so (it is a natural conclusion that we make because without pleasure, then you would obviously be completely dead inside and no one would ever want that). You would obviously sacrifice your intelligence and all other areas of your brain if it meant not losing all of your pleasure. And for you to state otherwise would obviously mean you have no comprehension whatsoever of what it would feel like to lose all of your pleasure.

Therefore, since pleasure is the greatest function of the brain, if you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person regardless of how much activity or capabilities you have in other parts of your brain.

Have you met Riketo?

[Mozart Link]

Having more pleasure would make you a more superior living thing.

Ah, there we go.

In science there is no such thing as a 'more superior living thing'. So, you're either making this up from your own opinion, or your "science" sources aren't doing science.

But the concept of "superior" has a scientific explanation because everything has a scientific explanation. Therefore, since there would have to be a scientific definition of "superior," then that is what determines whether that definition applies here in my argument or not.

[LostLocke]

But the concept of "superior" has a scientific explanation...

Quote and source that definition.

[Mozart Link]

But the concept of "superior" has a scientific explanation...

Quote and source that definition.

I can't. You have to find it yourself because it's obviously there. To say it doesn't exist is false because, again, anything that exists has a scientific explanation for it. The fact that this word exists and its definition according to the dictionary obviously means it has a scientific explanation and definition for it as well.

[Jenny A]

Ah, there we go.

In science there is no such thing as a 'more superior living thing'. So, you're either making this up from your own opinion, or your "science" sources aren't doing science.

But the concept of "superior" has a scientific explanation because everything has a scientific explanation. Therefore, since there would have to be a scientific definition of "superior," then that is what determines whether that definition applies here in my argument or not.

BZZZZZZZT! Wrong.

Not everything has a scientific explanation. When it does, the job of science will be finished.

Nor can everything have a scientific explanation. Concepts are ideas or general notions. They exist in our heads, not in the empirical world. They can be useful to science as a hypothesis or a means of description if they are well defined.

You haven't defined superior in any useful way.