Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Can "Good and Bad" be described scientifically?

  1. #1 Can "Good and Bad" be described scientifically? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    The idea is that morality and good/bad (good/evil) is all religiously oriented (grounded) but can the rules and observational evidence of the sciences redefine?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    I tried to do something of the sorts here if you're interested:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...hlight=#205426

    I haven't however, come to any conclusions or anything.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior PhoenixG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    336
    I think it's more of a question for moral philosophers than for scientists.

    I think science can tell us a lot about how people react or tabulate responses to show how norms operate, however I don't think "what is moral vs immoral?" falls under that purview. My 2 cents.
    "PhoenixG makes me puke that why I quoted him." - esbo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Can "Good and Bad" be described scientifically 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Bishadi
    The idea is that morality and good/bad (good/evil) is all religiously oriented (grounded) but can the rules and observational evidence of the sciences redefine?
    The good and bad concepts of morality aren't religious traits of humanity but cultural. This is a stone cold fact of objective reality. No rational person who isn't afflicted by superstition assigns morality to religion, though clearly there are religions who would like to declare themselves the sources of morality in order to subvert, oppress and dominate their societies.

    But let's please keep threads within the guidelines of the forum found in the sticky.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Can "Good and Bad" be described scientifically 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Bishadi
    The idea is that morality and good/bad (good/evil) is all religiously oriented (grounded) but can the rules and observational evidence of the sciences redefine?
    The good and bad concepts of morality aren't religious traits of humanity but cultural.
    sorry, because if this is who i think it is, i am on the wrong site.

    this one line told me everything i already know; you do not follow your own rules

    The good and bad concepts of morality aren't religious traits of humanity but cultural.

    traits? what is that? nothing biological of religious beliefs.

    and MY OPINION is most all historical knowledge within MOST EVERY culture (On earth) is bound to a religion............ MY OPINION (show me an example of other before the 1800's (a culture not of a religion (for morality issues))

    This is a stone cold fact of objective reality.
    ah........(there you go)...... the rule breaking begins

    see http://www.thescienceforum.com/Posti...rum-18840t.php

    2nd paragraph..

    Disregarding this and insisting that your point of view is fact rather than opinion may be construed as preaching rather than being open to discussion, which is prohibited.

    No rational person who isn't afflicted by superstition assigns morality to religion,
    but them core BELIEFS of (thou shalt not murder) are based on an OLD OLD OLD belief system

    (as my opinion shares) there is lot's of history to verify it too

    though clearly there are religions who would like to declare themselves the sources of morality in order to subvert, oppress and dominate their societies.
    i agree and why grounding GOOD and BAD to nature, existence, LIFE>..... MAY, PERHAPS, POSSIBLY, COULD BE... the best method of assisting each in equality and understanding.

    this may be true because in nature, all can experience the same equally.


    But let's please keep threads within the guidelines of the forum found in the sticky.
    i read them before posting and why BOTH threads are following them

    while you dont!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Can "Good and Bad" be described scientifically 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Bishadi
    No rational person who isn't afflicted by superstition assigns morality to religion,
    but them core BELIEFS of (thou shalt not murder) are based on an OLD OLD OLD belief system

    (as my opinion shares) there is lot's of history to verify it too
    I ask you, based on the assumption that you are religious, if you think God forbids killing just for the hell of it, or if there is a reason for why God forbids it. This is the difference between moral prescriptivism and ethical naturalism. Do you believe that something about killing makes it wrong, or is it not wrong but you can't do it because God dislikes it.

    I don't think you'd have to reach far to come up with a reason of your own for murder to be wrong without having to resort to "God says so".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Can "Good and Bad" be described scientifically 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Bishadi
    The idea is that morality and good/bad (good/evil) is all religiously oriented (grounded)
    Rephrase this as follows and I can agree with you:
    The idea is that morality and good/bad (good/evil) was all religiously oriented (grounded)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bishadi
    but can the rules and observational evidence of the sciences redefine?
    As far as I can see, which is sometimes well beyond the end of my nose, Science can explain in many instances why we hold certain things to be good or bad. That ain't too surprising is it?

    Now as to all morality being cultural rather than religious I'm plumb dumbfounded. I always thought that there religion was a pretty important part of a lot of cultures and I ain't seen to many cultures that didn't have some religion buried in them someplace.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Now that I have put my clown nose and oversized shoes, allow me to enter the frey, I mean this discussion

    (sidenote: What does science have to do with defining what a word is and what its used for? Good and bad, without a context, are completely arbitrary. If you die of the plague it might be perceived as bad for you and good for the plague bacteria that are eating you. The physical laws of the universe we can observe scientifically apply equally to bacteria as they do to humans.)

    Do chimps have no morals? Cause I dont think they have a religion and I'm pretty sure their behavior does every now and then take into account social factors, if you piss off the tribe you might be expelled (which happens to potentially make it harder to survive). Removing lice from another chimp helps someone else, helps the tribe and helps the individual socially.

    How does the chimp know what is more likely to be appreciated by other chimps? Is there a chimp bible that says 'thou shall not brutally smack thy simian fellow on the face, less thou be unappreciated' ? How can they know what humans cant figureout without a holy book? There must be something they've figured out. Maybe they got it through the primal faculty of projection even if no one told them 'dont do on to others what you dont want others to do to you' in the simian scriptures.

    Another guideline is "avoid a behavior that is disruptive to society if performed on a large scale" (which is something a lot of humans havent yet figured out)

    Imo these two helpful guidelines are about it. The rest can be derived from these, or are just etiquette, cultural, ritual, superstitions, deception, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Can "Good and Bad" be described scientifically 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by Bishadi
    No rational person who isn't afflicted by superstition assigns morality to religion,
    but them core BELIEFS of (thou shalt not murder) are based on an OLD OLD OLD belief system

    (as my opinion shares) there is lot's of history to verify it too
    I ask you, based on the assumption that you are religious, if you think God forbids killing just for the hell of it, or if there is a reason for why God forbids it. This is the difference between moral prescriptivism and ethical naturalism. Do you believe that something about killing makes it wrong, or is it not wrong but you can't do it because God dislikes it.
    killing is taking from existence (stopping a life)

    no matter what it is. You breath, you kill; can't get around it.

    killing that will 'support the total' and is based on the context of life as the priority, then eating is OTAY

    putting into the pocket based on that murder is not

    I don't think you'd have to reach far to come up with a reason of your own for murder to be wrong without having to resort to "God says so".
    i agree

    i am not religious as far as rituals beliefs and the fun stuff of 'god said so'

    nature (all of existence, at the same time) is what i consider god

    to then observe nature, then the rules are 'good'

    no need to make em up but mankind can describe them and grind "good and bad" to nature (god if you like the name/title); then they all equal to mankind

    does this 'idea' make sense?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Can "Good and Bad" be described scientifically 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath
    Quote Originally Posted by Bishadi
    The idea is that morality and good/bad (good/evil) is all religiously oriented (grounded)
    Rephrase this as follows and I can agree with you:
    The idea is that morality and good/bad (good/evil) was all religiously oriented (grounded)
    a teacher (are ya)?

    thank you as i love to be corrected when the 'good' is being shared.

    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath

    Quote Originally Posted by Bishadi
    but can the rules and observational evidence of the sciences redefine?
    As far as I can see, which is sometimes well beyond the end of my nose, Science can explain in many instances why we hold certain things to be good or bad. That ain't too surprising is it?
    not at all.

    Now as to all morality being cultural rather than religious I'm plumb dumbfounded. I always thought that there religion was a pretty important part of a lot of cultures and I ain't seen to many cultures that didn't have some religion buried in them someplace.
    the 'all' is a big word (i apologize) but most have the basics of rule grounded down to a belief system i.e... (some) pharaohs were considered gods way back when and why i see when Moses was considered to have spoke to god, well since he was raised in pharoahs house (baby upon the river; pharoah daughter found him) then talking to god was perhaps normal back then) (as an example)

    i see it that in the western societies, most basis of morality are tied to a belief (see commandments all over the countries, 'court houses' (swearing on bible by pres...etc...))

    what i am wondering is who can assist with identifying the G&B as found within nature, science and religions combined?

    some type of foundation equal to all mankind....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Can "Good and Bad" be described scientifically 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by TruePath
    Now as to all morality being cultural rather than religious I'm plumb dumbfounded. I always thought that there religion was a pretty important part of a lot of cultures and I ain't seen to many cultures that didn't have some religion buried in them someplace.
    This is exactly the point. If morality would be founded on religion, wouldn't every religion have different basic moral beliefs? But as I see it, there are at least a few universal basic rules of morality. I think that religions are just trying to provide a framework to sort or explain them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    *Nods*

    Religion articulates good & bad. Sometimes religion gets ahead of itself and claims to own good & bad. But mostly it's just pointing out what's already there, wired into us or culturally absorbed, that we might have issues about.

    A telling thing about religion is what it's concerned with and what it seems oblivious to. If religion says don't do something you can bet those people did perceive that something as a real possibility and pressing issue of the day. I find Christianity's preoccupation with sexual discipline very telling. And then some gaping blind areas of religions are telling too. The blind areas represent the unthinkable. Why is, say, racial discrimination a non-issue in many religions?

    Anyway, we can excavate our most fundamental, unthinkable convictions of good & bad by studying animals, IMO. These are "facts of life" so basic no one feels a need to point them out.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    *Nods*

    Religion articulates good & bad. Sometimes religion gets ahead of itself and claims to own good & bad. But mostly it's just pointing out what's already there, wired into us or culturally absorbed, that we might have issues about.
    many (most) cultures are religious based. (wars, divides, etc.... are all often hindered by them very beliefs within religions)

    unless there is a culture you know of that did not have beliefs in mythology, theology or even nature as having the last word?

    A telling thing about religion is what it's concerned with and what it seems oblivious to. If religion says don't do something you can bet those people did perceive that something as a real possibility and pressing issue of the day. I find Christianity's preoccupation with sexual discipline very telling.
    seems even back in the day of 'oracles' the sex issue was important.

    but the roman bath houses reveals the expanded the moral tolerances not to mention the old Spartan cultures i which boys were handimades to soldiers until it was time to procreate (for life)

    the religion now a days seem to be just like much of old; no idea on the facts, so God is 'said' to have 'said' the last word as placed into writing.

    God, is said to warn and even destroy any who sway; as the fear tactic.

    And then some gaping blind areas of religions are telling too. The blind areas represent the unthinkable.
    or misunderstood.

    Such as beliefs are supposed to offer the venue to long life in truth but often hold onto a belief as the last word.

    (life and that after-life seem to be what is often sought and the reason why people believe them; hence the threads opened but keep getting closed in this section as the moderation apparently doesn't realize the pursuit of life and what beliefs suggest are and have always been assoicated)

    Why is, say, racial discrimination a non-issue in many religions?
    that's untrue (in the mitzvots; there is a command that says to kill 'x' people as a rule of law) Sure the rules evolve but many (most) are quite prejudice

    Anyway, we can excavate our most fundamental, unthinkable convictions of good & bad by studying animals, IMO. These are "facts of life" so basic no one feels a need to point them out.
    Are you suggesting the instinctive intent of life (animals/critters/life) to continue living could not share the rules of good and bad better than mankind?

    Meaning: mother nature has provided the evidence, mankind has created the words to describe. It seems the rules exist but perhaps not understood or defined into words for all to comprehend?

    Since life is the ultimate objective, instinctively and religiously; perhaps the comprehension should be based on that 'intent' of life to continue?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •