Jump to content
coffeesippin

Has science failed to recognize morality as lifesaving?

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

'You don't know what you're talking about' is the standard response to anyone differing, when the response should be open minded discussion and presentation of information.

Making things up .. with google those things are easy to show as being made up.

Yes reason and intelligence are very important, and most or all faiths will agree ("Love God with all your mind" is a commandment in the New Testament for instance.)    Statistics can prove that people do become instruments perhaps not of God's wrath but of righteous judgment in the same way murders are put behind bars.  However .. I'm not out to preach religion in this topic, but to find ways of giving people a chance at a longer life in which they can search and find morality that will save their lives.  THEN they may want to explore the origins of morality, whether it is science or that which some people call God.  It's obvious the world's religions have failed miserably.   

You use an extreme example, killing police to protect a child, of course that is legitimate in some cases for instance where a White Supremacist authority is out to destroy Blacks, but Matin Luther King with his faith did a good job of reminding Blacks in America that violence is not the answer.  Many people, howevr, would be willing to kill 'barbarians' whose nations possess the crude oil, gold and diamonds in order to protect the fuel supply for their Cadillac (oops, some sort of glitch there perhaps, I meant to write 'child.'

Who is at fault for the lack of publicity?   One simple example:  some moderators on discussion forums shut down the discussion as soon as it approaches the idea of right and wrong in sexual behaviour, accusing the poster of being homophobic even though the poster emphasizes anal sex is also a heterosexual practice .. or far right religious for instance.  I think science can publicize its approach to morality, but doesn't often, and that I hadn't been exposed to the large amount of scientific approach to morality is one example that science itself suppresses its involvement, perhaps FOR the reason scientists may be accused of being right wing fanatics IF they promote publicity.   I'll try to answer your last statement after a short break.

 
Morality:  principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"
  • the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
    "behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"
     
    Note that religion plays no part in this definition, while definitions of right and wrong become a question.  Is 'right' something that leads to life and health, and 'wrong' leading to sickness and death?  Or is that simple nature?  Do animals know right from wrong?  If they do do their instincts for dominance overcome their instincts for right, and also with man?   What is right for one group of people may be right ONLY until that group becomes aware intellectually that their 'right' behaviour leads to death, then it becomes wrong.   It's very clear that certain sexual behaviours (promiscuity one of them) can easily lead to sickness and even death.  That is not science's fault, as science through research of causes and with statistics tries to prevent sickness and death.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

According to one study at least condoms fail to prevent HIV 50% anyway. 

That's nonsense.. "Scientists" would have to order one group of infected people, to have sex with other group of not infected people, and then verify whether they have been infected or not and in what percentage (not all intercourse are ending up with infection). It's quite not doable in democratic country (such "study" would be doable only in totalitarian regime in concentration camp). Scientific method requires to have "control group" and "experimental group".

50 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

And condoms will fail to prevent STIs if the sex organs are not used for the purpose they were intended .. people with a condom inserting into the anus then into the vagina is not going to save the woman from STI, for instance.

If woman was infected already (thus had microbes in her anus and poo), placing it in the both, will just spread microbes. If that's the case, it can happen spontaneously while e.g. taking bath or during shower.

Monogamists also have anal and oral sex.

Lack of (or incorrect) sexual education won't prevent people from experimentation. Concentration on morality in sexual education is anti-sexual education in my humble opinion..

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Arete said:

When your default position is “everything that contradicts my position is fake news” your position becomes dismissiable, in its entirety, with contempt. Especially in science. 

Very often that is the case.  In science and other fields including religion 'learned' men spend many years and much money acquiring their document of education, they have ticked all the right boxes, pleased all the right people, are awarded with a good salary and sense of pride and accomplishment, any doubt that they may be wrong in any way may cause them great discomfort, and the fight or flight response kicks in , they have too much at stake emotionally and financially to run, so they MUST attack, the fortress MUST be defended against barbarians.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Very often that is the case.

Allow me to clarify - you justified why it was acceptable for you to simply make things up and dismiss evidence provided by others. When you did that, you demonstrated that nothing you have to say is worth listening to. 

A worthwhile discussion requires a preponderance of evidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sensei said:

That's nonsense.. "Scientists" would have to order one group of infected people, to have sex with other group of not infected people, and then verify whether they have been infected or not and in what percentage (not all intercourse are ending up with infection). It's quite not doable in democratic country (such "study" would be doable only in totalitarian regime in concentration camp). Scientific method requires to have "control group" and "experimental group".

If woman was infected already (thus had microbes in her anus and poo), placing it in the both, will just spread microbes. If that's the case, it can happen spontaneously while e.g. taking bath or during shower.

Monogamists also have anal and oral sex.

Lack of (or incorrect) sexual education won't prevent people from experimentation. Concentration on morality in sexual education is anti-sexual education in my humble opinion..

Nonsense?  Science seems to have been involved in the studies .. probably statistical science based on questionaires.  Facing our mortality can be humbling, once a person has a serious illness leading to death (or not) they might be open to honesty about their lives in order to save their lives, or to help others.

HPV 16 and 18 are totally common at the anus, that's where they choose to live, with no harm done, unless rough use opens a lesion through which they enter the body instead of residing on its surface.  This is science.  If those viruses are transferred to the cervix they become, according to science, the ONLY cause of cancer there, they don't cause cancer in the vagina where they might enter in small numbers through carelessness or very tight clothing like thongs rubbing against both openings, but in such cases other agents can cause other infections.

I'm not advocating concentration on morality .. I'm asking that morality be scientifically examined (and it is in a large way I have discovered through this discussion) in order that intellectually inclined people may see morality as one way to avoid death.

Yes, some but not all monogamists (and heterosexuals as I have said two or three times in this discussion) also have anal sex.  In my opinion scriptures of religions approve of certain kinds of oral sex; but there is some speculation that anal sex leads to prostate cancer when viruses like HPV enters their urethra and then into their prostate.   

10 minutes ago, Arete said:

Allow me to clarify - you justified why it was acceptable for you to simply make things up and dismiss evidence provided by others. When you did that, you demonstrated that nothing you have to say is worth listening to. 

A worthwhile discussion requires a preponderance of evidence. 

I did NO such thing.  You suggested that some people make things up as evidence.  I said those fabrications can be easily dismissed through google (for those with minds open to new knowledge that is.)  I'd be a fool to fabricate when so much evidence for so many topics of discussion is so easily available on the internet.   

A worthwhile discussion may lead only to a valuable desire to find evidence.

Edited by coffeesippin
Clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Nonsense?  Science seems to have been involved in the studies .. probably statistical science based on questionaires.

Questionnaires are not valid scientific method. Infected person does not know when and how has been infected, especially in the case of diseases such as HIV, which does not give immediate symptoms about infection.

If somebody would be infected by disease which is giving symptoms in just a couple days or weeks after event, and had no further sexual intercourse between sex and moment of diagnose by doctor, and ex-sexual partner was also diagnosed to be positive - this would give quite large probability that the right source of infection has been detected.

10 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

HPV 16 and 18 are totally common at the anus,

...but you said HIV, not HPV, in your previous post...

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

'You don't know what you're talking about' is the standard response to anyone differing, when the response should be open minded discussion and presentation of information.

Except if you go back in the thread, you can see where people have corrected some of your misunderstandings during our open-minded discussion and presentation of (mis)information. Nothing about being open-minded suggests I need to listen to you when you're wrong and it can be shown you're wrong. Open-minded people weigh the preponderance of evidence regarding an explanation of phenomena, as Arete has stated. 

If you don't understand what you're talking about, how gimped are you in a Google search to determine the validity of a statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Questionnaires are not valid scientific method. Infected person does not know when and how has been infected, especially in the case of diseases such as HIV, which does not give immediate symptoms about infection.

If somebody would be infected by disease which is giving symptoms in just a couple days or weeks after event, and had no further sexual intercourse between sex and moment of diagnose by doctor, and ex-sexual partner was also diagnosed to be positive - this would give quite large probability that the right source of infection has been detected.

...but you said HIV, not HPV, in your previous post...

 

I think science proves the value of questionnaires but if we differ on that we'll have to disagree until one of finds and shows proof of their position.

The topic is STIs which included HIV, HPV cancers, and many others.    

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Except if you go back in the thread, you can see where people have corrected some of your misunderstandings during our open-minded discussion and presentation of (mis)information. Nothing about being open-minded suggests I need to listen to you when you're wrong and it can be shown you're wrong. Open-minded people weigh the preponderance of evidence regarding an explanation of phenomena, as Arete has stated. 

If you don't understand what you're talking about, how gimped are you in a Google search to determine the validity of a statement?

If people have corrected some of what they consider my misunderstandings I hope I appreciate their help.  However, right now I can't remember anyone doing that.  Perhaps you can bring forward some demonstrations? 

I do see where one person on the first page I can't remember their name answered my question, that science has taken a scientific approach to morality, so it has not failed.  That perhaps answers my specific question, which was a question, not a statement of condemnation of science.   I repeat, I believe in the value of true science.  I do not question the Big Bang for instance because I believe in the bible, but because I believe in science which says quantum fluctuation is an alternative to BB, and I do NOT want to discuss that here, only an example of my belief in the power of science to help us understand and know.

If an open minded person is truly open minded they might consider how they can help someone they consider wrong, by examining what that person is saying, and providing evidence that they are wrong.  Of course not all of us have that time and energy.

26 minutes ago, Arete said:

The CDC states that condoms are 91% effective in preventing HIV transmission via anal sex

So im going to posit that the 50% figure was simply fabricated.

Posit what you want.  The figure was from a study I may or may not be able to relocate.  

Here's some CDC stuff that seems to dispute both our numbers.  Studies will vary of course.

 

 

http://www.aidsmap.com/Consistent-condom-use-in-anal-sex-stops-70-of-HIV-infections-study-finds/page/2586976/

 

An analysis by Dawn Smith of the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported at the 20th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI 2013) on 4 March has provided the first estimate of the efficacy of condoms in preventing HIV transmission during anal sex since 1989. It found condoms stop seven out of ten anal transmissions – the same efficacy found by the 1989 study.

However, it also found that sometimes using condoms is not effective at preventing HIV infection, and that long-term 100% condom use is a minority behaviour: only one-in-six gay men actually managed to maintain it over the three- to four-year time frame of the analysis.

One ongoing problem in assessing the effectiveness of different HIV prevention methods is that anal sex is under-studied. We do not have enough data on rectal viral loads and their effect on transmission, or on whether HIV treatment reduces transmission via anal sex as well as it does for vaginal sex.

We are also unclear about to what extent condoms actually prevent HIV transmission in anal sex. This last fact may seem surprising, given that condoms have been recommended since the mid-1980s as the only effective HIV prevention method for gay men who have anal sex.

In fact, there is only one large study in gay men, dating from 1989. In this study of 2914 gay men, HIV incidence among those who said they used condoms 100% of the time was 70% lower than in men who did not use them at all. There has been one small study in the era of antiretroviral treatment (ART), which found an efficacy of approximately 75%.

 

Amongst all men having anal sex, men who said they used condoms 100% of the time were 70% less likely to acquire HIV than men who never used condoms.

These are somewhat lower than efficacies computed for vaginal sex, which is in the order of 80 to 85%, and may reflect both that HIV is at least ten times more easily transmitted via anal than vaginal sex, and also that condoms may be more likely to fail during anal sex.

Edited by coffeesippin
inclusion of evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Posit what you want.  The figure was from a study I may or may not be able to relocate.  

Lols 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Except if you go back in the thread, you can see where people have corrected some of your misunderstandings during our open-minded discussion and presentation of (mis)information. Nothing about being open-minded suggests I need to listen to you when you're wrong and it can be shown you're wrong. Open-minded people weigh the preponderance of evidence regarding an explanation of phenomena, as Arete has stated. 

If you don't understand what you're talking about, how gimped are you in a Google search to determine the validity of a statement?

verb
past tense: gimped; past participle: gimped
  1. limp; hobble.
    "she gimped around thereafter on an artificial leg"      I have thoroughly advocated googling as a way to enhance discussion.
1 minute ago, Arete said:

Lols 

LOL?   Can you relocate every instance of what you have ever googled?   Can you remember the exact question or statement you ever googled?  One question can located 10s of millions of replies.  Your sense of superiority is obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

If an open minded person is truly open minded they might consider how they can help someone they consider wrong, by examining what that person is saying, and providing evidence that they are wrong.  Of course not all of us have that time and energy.

Never mind, I saw how you treated Arete's evidence that you were wrong. You seem to be pretty happy in your ignorance, and that makes it hard to discuss anything meaningful with you. It's a shame.

4 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:
verb
past tense: gimped; past participle: gimped
  1. limp; hobble.
    "she gimped around thereafter on an artificial leg"      I have thoroughly advocated googling as a way to enhance discussion.

Exactly. Gimped. Hobbled. You can't get around the knowledge very well because you don't have vital pieces of information that are keeping you from understanding. And since you could easily study what you're ridiculing, it's willful ignorance, a self-imposed set of blinders, or a ball and chain you locked on your own leg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Arete said:

The CDC states that condoms are 91% effective in preventing HIV transmission via anal sex

So im going to posit that the 50% figure was simply fabricated.

I think so coffeesippin simply mixed HPV with HIV in the previous post.. Almost everybody have HPV in their lifetime. Majority without any symptoms.

 

"Approximately 79 million Americans are currently infected with HPV, with roughly 14 million people becoming newly infected each year. Most men and women — about 80 percent of sexually active people — are infected with HPV at some point in their lives, but most people never know they have the virus."

 

CDC: "HPV is so common that nearly all sexually active men and women get the virus at some point in their lives."

https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stats.htm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:
  Your sense of superiority is obvious.

If it’s the sense that official statements from the CDC are superior than stuff that coffeesipper made up, then I guess so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Never mind, I saw how you treated Arete's evidence that you were wrong. You seem to be pretty happy in your ignorance, and that makes it hard to discuss anything meaningful with you. It's a shame.

Exactly. Gimped. Hobbled. You can't get around the knowledge very well because you don't have vital pieces of information that are keeping you from understanding. And since you could easily study what you're ridiculing, it's willful ignorance, a self-imposed set of blinders, or a ball and chain you locked on your own leg.

You don't seem to read much in my posts.  More than once I said my question was a question not a statement or condemnation of science.  A few times I have demonstrated I have love for and respect for science.  You simply superimpose my faith in front of your eyes to deny my respect for science, you must use what you think you know of my faith as an excuse NOT to read my posts.  Here's some vital information which I presented to Arete.

 

 

http://www.aidsmap.com/Consistent-condom-use-in-anal-sex-stops-70-of-HIV-infections-study-finds/page/2586976/

 

An analysis by Dawn Smith of the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported at the 20th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI 2013) on 4 March has provided the first estimate of the efficacy of condoms in preventing HIV transmission during anal sex since 1989. It found condoms stop seven out of ten anal transmissions – the same efficacy found by the 1989 study.

However, it also found that sometimes using condoms is not effective at preventing HIV infection, and that long-term 100% condom use is a minority behaviour: only one-in-six gay men actually managed to maintain it over the three- to four-year time frame of the analysis.

One ongoing problem in assessing the effectiveness of different HIV prevention methods is that anal sex is under-studied. We do not have enough data on rectal viral loads and their effect on transmission, or on whether HIV treatment reduces transmission via anal sex as well as it does for vaginal sex.

We are also unclear about to what extent condoms actually prevent HIV transmission in anal sex. This last fact may seem surprising, given that condoms have been recommended since the mid-1980s as the only effective HIV prevention method for gay men who have anal sex.

In fact, there is only one large study in gay men, dating from 1989. In this study of 2914 gay men, HIV incidence among those who said they used condoms 100% of the time was 70% lower than in men who did not use them at all. There has been one small study in the era of antiretroviral treatment (ART), which found an efficacy of approximately 75%.

 

Amongst all men having anal sex, men who said they used condoms 100% of the time were 70% less likely to acquire HIV than men who never used condoms.

These are somewhat lower than efficacies computed for vaginal sex, which is in the order of 80 to 85%, and may reflect both that HIV is at least ten times more easily transmitted via anal than vaginal sex, and also that condoms may be more likely to fail during anal sex.

4 minutes ago, Arete said:

If it’s the sense that official statements from the CDC are superior than stuff that coffeesipper made up, then I guess so. 

I have now included directly to you and PHI direct quotes from the CDC which suggest your numbers and mine are not accurate.  As I said, studies will have varying results. 

6 minutes ago, Sensei said:

I think so coffeesippin simply mixed HPV with HIV in the previous post.. Almost everybody have HPV in their lifetime. Majority without any symptoms.

 

"Approximately 79 million Americans are currently infected with HPV, with roughly 14 million people becoming newly infected each year. Most men and women — about 80 percent of sexually active people — are infected with HPV at some point in their lives, but most people never know they have the virus."

 

CDC: "HPV is so common that nearly all sexually active men and women get the virus at some point in their lives."

https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stats.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3728052/    ...  scientific study of the Canadian HPV cancer epidemic.  

6 minutes ago, Sensei said:

 

 

8 minutes ago, Arete said:

If it’s the sense that official statements from the CDC are superior than stuff that coffeesipper made up, then I guess so. 

I'll post this again for your benefit, Arete.   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3728052/     The HPV cancer epidemic in Canada, a scientific study.   I have also posted CDC quotes on the effectiveness of condoms in a certain population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

You don't seem to read much in my posts.  More than once I said my question was a question not a statement or condemnation of science.

I'm not actually taking part in this debate, and have a busy full day ahead of me today. Let me say though, while asking questions is entirely admirable, and encouraged particularly on a science forum, the bone of contention in my opinion anyway, is that sometimes people ask questions with an agenda afoot, and with absolutely no intention of accepting any answer that may conflict with that agenda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Arete said:

If it’s the sense that official statements from the CDC are superior than stuff that coffeesipper made up, then I guess so. 

"Subsequent analyses (meta-analyses) of many studies in heterosexual couples have estimated that the effectiveness of consistent condom use ranges between 69% and 94%. Similar results (70% to 91% effectiveness) have been observed in studies of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM). This wide range of estimates may have to do with the number of studies included and the different ways in which researchers have conducted the analyses."    https://www.catie.ca/en/fact-sheets/prevention/condoms 

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm not actually taking part in this debate, and have a busy full day ahead of me today. Let me say though, while asking questions is entirely admirable, and encouraged particularly on a science forum, the bone of contention in my opinion anyway, is that sometimes people ask questions with an agenda afoot, and with absolutely no intention of accepting any answer that may conflict with that agenda. 

Sometimes that may be true, and seems to be demonstrated often in internet discussions.  But even if it is true in those cases, an open mind can benefit from the question and discussion.   I can't ever recall posing a question with that goal.  Despite the polarization demonstrated in discussions I try to remain open minded to information. 

36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Never mind, I saw how you treated Arete's evidence that you were wrong. You seem to be pretty happy in your ignorance, and that makes it hard to discuss anything meaningful with you. It's a shame.

Well now PHI, here's what Arete presented as evidence, and my response to him:  Talk about fabrication of evidence (Arete stated CDC says 91% condom effectiveness and provided a link) 

  That link does not go to CDC it goes to POZ whatever that is, the writer in POZ using unsubstantiated statements ABOUT CDC studies but even then recognizing a 70% figure not 91%.  https://www.poz.com/article/condoms-cut-hiv-risk-91-anal-sex-new-cdc-estimate-says

I hope, Phi, that suggests to you you might consider improving your treatment of whatever I post.

59 minutes ago, Arete said:

If it’s the sense that official statements from the CDC are superior than stuff that coffeesipper made up, then I guess so. 

If in the sense that your link does not go to or anywhere NEAR the CDC, nor does information in your link document official statements from the CDC,  yet you say "official statements from the CDC" .. well .. made up stuff is made up stuff.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

If you can find a group that opposes abortion, but promotes the use of condoms then you have found a group that's either irreligious or rather rare.

Why does religion tie into it?

I said I don't see why saying we should kill Babies increases the transfer rate of STI's, as per the OP. Not what the religious position is on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Why does religion tie into it?

I don't know. But people seem to let it.

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I said I don't see why saying we should kill Babies increases the transfer rate of STI's

As has been pointed out, many people seem to have linked the two.

You are correct; there is no logical link.

Indeed, the link goes the wrong way. If you really want to cut down on the number of terminations, the best way to do it is to ensure that contraception (and advice) is readily available.
There do not seem to be many groups advocating that view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the film 'Spotlight'  ?

Which is more immoral

Many men of the Church abusing young boys

or

Those in authority who knew about it

or

The 'God" that allowed it to happen?

 

What figures can you offer that Science ever worked like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

Who is at fault for the lack of publicity?   One simple example:  some moderators on discussion forums shut down the discussion as soon as it approaches the idea of right and wrong in sexual behaviour, accusing the poster of being homophobic even though the poster emphasizes anal sex is also a heterosexual practice .. or far right religious for instance.

That's your go-to example? Some forum moderators? 

4 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

  I think science can publicize its approach to morality, but doesn't often, and that I hadn't been exposed to the large amount of scientific approach to morality is one example that science itself suppresses its involvement, perhaps FOR the reason scientists may be accused of being right wing fanatics IF they promote publicity.   I'll try to answer your last statement after a short break.

Does science have an approach to morality? You have to show that this is the case before you can speak of suppressing its involvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

There do not seem to be many groups advocating that view.

Sigh. This world is sad.

18 hours ago, iNow said:

But it can. 

 

And we also have no free will. According to the book at least. 

Also according to that book, humans are more important than animals.

Because of reasons?

I like where the author tried to go with the book, but there were far too many assumptions simply made in order for him to try to like science to morality, such as what I state above, that humans are more important than animals.

How can you scientifically prove that humans are more important than animals? 

His reason inside of the book is that because the majority of people believe it, it's true. Such as many of the other things, such as comparing one life which he describes as dismally poor, and another life as extremely well off and wealthy, and because the majority of people say the second life is better he says you can scientifically measure how moral something is based on that.

How does that work though?

 

I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but in my opinion, the Moral Landscape failed to really connect science to morality.

Either way, this is a discussion we can have in another thread if you'd like, I'd be happy to join. :)

11 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

      This is my first time using the quote function, so if my response is messed up, it's messed up.  Here I go .. push the submit reply.

It worked somewhat, except your responses were inside of my quote. I'll reply to some of them.

 

First of all, just because something is still done doesn't mean it's not considered immoral.

 

People are still murdered. Yes. But does that mean as a society we have decided Murder isn't immoral any more? Same goes with stealing and rape.

 

Morality can't be measured any more than the public opinion of it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

 

Either way, this is a discussion we can have in another thread if you'd like, I'd be happy to join. :)

People are still murdered. Yes. But does that mean as a society we have decided Murder isn't immoral any more? Same goes with stealing and rape.

Morality can't be measured any more than the public opinion of it. 

 

 

If you start a discussion please notify me I'll look into it.

Murder:  What society do you belong to?  if you belong to the normal law abiding society murder is immoral.  If you belong to a society in which murder is acceptable murder is not immoral.  Does the 'Mafia' for instance consider murder immoral if it maintains their supremacy in crime?  Does the government consider murder moral if it is necessary to maintain their turf whether inside national borders or outside national borders?  

For practical purposes, morality, if it is defined as that which leads away from death, can be clearly measured by the number of deaths arising from certain acts, war is immoral for instance, and measurements have been done showing for instance certain sexual acts and sexual lifestyles lead to death whereas other certain sexual acts and sexual lifestyles do not lead to death.  Of course there can be exceptions, a man and woman free of sexual infections can have a relationship of monogamous sex, the women become pregnant, and die in childbirth .. extremely rare today but possible. 

Then there is the strange case of the African prostitutes who remain immune to HIV until they stop working at the trade.  https://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/03/us/a-new-aids-mystery-prostitutes-who-have-remained-immune.html     Perhaps the stronger morality of buying food for their children protects them from the weaker morality of selling themselves.  Perhaps after the need for selling themselves end they enter into a lifestyle of 'loose morals' and then contract HIV.  I say perhaps .. but they are an astonishing puzzle to medical science.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, swansont said:

Does science have an approach to morality? You have to show that this is the case before you can speak of suppressing its involvement.

"The aim of this paper is to argue that ethics is a systematic theoretical reflection that covers the moral principles and values with a double status, philosophical and scientific, without being able to accurately distinguish which side is more important, even though, at some point, in relation to a particular issue, either the philosophical interpretation or the scientific has the power to prevail."

https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877042814049143/1-s2.0-S1877042814049143-main.pdf?_tid=891d13d4-d245-457c-ba80-74ec31b67e93&acdnat=1542589177_2455a3495cdf93ff4a71f57914bde41f

If you have respect for the magazine Scientific American this quote may mean something to you:  "Just because we cannot yet think of how science might resolve this or that moral conflict does not mean that the problem is an insoluble one. Science is the art of the soluble, and we should apply it where we can."   https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-right-and-wrong/

Scientific Method and the Moral Sciences

"IT had become a commonplace of the psychologist that there is a structure in our experience which runs out beyond what we ordinarily term our consciousness; that this structure of idea determines to a degree not generally recognized the very manner of our perception as well as that of our thinking, and that the structure itself is generally not in the focus of our attention and passes unnoticed in our thought and perceiving. It was this dependence of our field of direct experience upon such an unrecognized part of what we call mind that Freud has made the theme of his doctrines, in a realm that lies on the border of the abnormal or just over it."                  https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Mead/pubs/Mead_1923.html

Edited by coffeesippin
Added supporting reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

"The aim of this paper is to argue that ethics is a systematic theoretical reflection that covers the moral principles and values with a double status, philosophical and scientific, without being able to accurately distinguish which side is more important, even though, at some point, in relation to a particular issue, either the philosophical interpretation or the scientific has the power to prevail."

https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877042814049143/1-s2.0-S1877042814049143-main.pdf?_tid=891d13d4-d245-457c-ba80-74ec31b67e93&acdnat=1542589177_2455a3495cdf93ff4a71f57914bde41f

That's about ethics, not morals.

5 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

If you have respect for the magazine Scientific American this quote may mean something to you:  "Just because we cannot yet think of how science might resolve this or that moral conflict does not mean that the problem is an insoluble one. Science is the art of the soluble, and we should apply it where we can."   https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-right-and-wrong/

How is science being able to address a moral dilemma (at some future date) relevant? That doesn't imply science currently has an approach to morality. It implies that it currently has no identifiable overlap. 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.