Science vs Morality

[Mozart Link]

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.

[ignoramus]

That falls in line with belief systems nicely.
You sacrifice your "intelligence" for the more pleasurable emotion, namely your belief that you are at one with god.
Also explains why most intellectuals and scientists aren't religious.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

Rubbish. I'm sure a wealthy serial killer gets an immense amount of pleasure from his hobbies, does that make him 'a better person' than the depressed, humble woman who volunteers at her local rape crisis centre?

You claim that the nonsense you posted is a 'scientific fact'. Could you possibly link to some articles in peer-reviewed journals supporting the contention 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' ?

I'll save you the trouble - you can't.

Boru

[GrandizerII]

Also, you can be greater than someone else at one thing but not at another. Keep this in mind.

[Bibliofagus]

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.

Fuck. Really? There's a branch of science that uses the definition 'people who have all the pleasure in the world with a sense of superiority' and 'better people'?
What is the name of this branch of science?

[GrandizerII]

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.

Fuck. Really? There's a branch of science that uses the definition 'people who have all the pleasure in the world with a sense of superiority' and 'better people'?
What is the name of this branch of science?

Narcissistics.

[ignoramus]

Fuck. Really? There's a branch of science that uses the definition 'people who have all the pleasure in the world with a sense of superiority' and 'better people'?
What is the name of this branch of science?

Narcissistics.

Or "religiously inspired" ... Easier on the tongue.

[Ben Davis]

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.

Citation needed. Since this is a false dichotomy, which wouldn't be the case if this were a scientific statement, I assume you can't provide it.

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

Citation needed. Since science doesn't define 'personhood', I assume you can't provide it.

and also the fact that greater is "better" when it comes to science.

Citation needed. Since 'most fit for purpose' is the common scientific standard of 'better' and quantitative value is rarely used in it's place, I assume you can't provide it.

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.

Because greater RAM makes a computer more fit for purpose.

Therefore, if you have a mind that has greater activity and capabilities, that makes you a better person.

Citation needed. Since this is a false analogy, I assume you can't provide it.

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.

Gibberish. A nonsense of assumptions, faulty premises and half-arsed conclusions.

Therefore, since pleasure is the greatest function of the brain...

Is it? Really? You haven't provided anything which might demonstrate this.

...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.

How judgmental of you.

I'm not sure what the purpose of this mischaracterisation is but it fails.

[Mudhammam]

So his logic is, pleasure = greater = better = more of a person? Um...okay...I follow that pleasure is better than its opposite but fail to understand how that translates into "more of a person." Taking his analogy of computers, all humans run on the same general hardware, so to speak, but sometimes the software needs adjustment. Fortunately, brain software is placid, and with the help of science and a better understanding of human nature, people can have their software "tweaked" so as to run to its full capacity.

Of course, some people are more intelligent or naturally more appreciative of their experiences, and probably derive more pleasure from life. There's no scientific basis, however, by which to deem any one of these qualities as rendering a person more valuable than others. That's a judgement we might be apt to make, especially as a society, and we do so all the time--Einstein was arguably a more valuable person than Charles Manson--but that's a subjective determination and cannot be established scientifically.

[Jenny A]

I'm sorry, but this is gibberish to me. You say science says over and over and then make assertions without definitions or citations.

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.

What makes a "better person" does not sound like a scientific question at all, especially if what is a "better person" is left undefined. It sounds like a moral or personal preference question. Putting the word science in the sentence doesn't help.

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.

Greater is not necessarily better according to science. Science makes no such blanket value judgements. And whether you are "more or less of a person" sounds more like a philosophical question than a scientific one.

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 does the computer have greater pleasure? And is it faster or slower. Is it portable? There are many factors by which we judge computers.

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.

Speak for yourself. Some of us derive substantial pleasure from our intelligence.

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.

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

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.

You still haven't established that pleasure is the greatest function of the brain, nor even what you mean by greatest function of the brain---the most common? the best? the driving force? the most pleasurable? the most useful? What?