quote:
The issue is that whenever you are asked for a naturalistic explanation of morality, you start talking about empathy. This makes me feel that you have concluded that loving others is good. Perhaps it is you who is misrepresenting science.
I am not "representing science" when I conclude that loving others is good. I certainly incorporate scientific knowledge in my understanding of human nature and natural tendencies, but my moral values are not derived solely from science.
They come partly from hard-wiring, and partly from society.
[qs]Gosh darn it, you just messed up again! You are using fairness and reciprocity as examples of how higher primates have moral codes. Science can not determine that this is moral, right?[/quote]
Again, you show that you do not understand the difference between "Is it moral?, and "Is it a morality?".
Science most certainly can determine if the monkeys have
a moral sense, whatever form that moral sense takes.
Science cannot make value judgements about if the particular moral values they demonstrate are good or not. They can show the effects of these moral values on the group and on individuals. They can show if they are beneficial or detrimental to the group or individuals.
Of course, the effects of such advanced higher brain abilities as reciprocity and fairness are are likely to be beneficial to the group, otherwise they wouldn't have been selected for.
quote:
The most you can be doing is saying that intelligence produces codes. Without the adjectives for moral behaviour that you have used, it is impossible to determine if lesser animals are producing codes as well.
Look, ana, higher primates are very, very much like us in many of their social interactions and constructions. I think that you are making claims about that which you don't have the knowledge to justify making those claims.
Brush all of the evidence aside and declare what you will. It doesn't make the evidence go away.
quote:
Although I understand that science can't answer what is moral, I have seen enough documentaries to know that scientists DO start with the premise that compassion is so.
Wow. You base your claim about how scientists follow the tenets of scientific inquiry on your assesment of
nature documentaries meant to entertain the public.
Do you think that TV shows are more interested in getting you emotionally involved in what you are watching or in providing as sober and academic presentation of the evidence?
Sheesh.
Makes sense.
quote:
I was hoping to hear 'all men were evolved equally and endowed by nature with inalienable rights' but oh well.
Why would you hope to hear that sort of thing?
quote:
I am content to know that something woo woo makes sense even to atheists.
It doesn't come from woo-woo, though.
It makes sense from a logical and "enlightened self-interest" sense.
Injustice and war are highly unpleasant and not conducive to health or contentment for me and my loved ones, and I can see that other people believe that it is detrimental to them as well. I can see how constant war and injustice is detrimental to our species' survival.
So, being good to each other is a better way to go.
Makes sense.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
