Women's Lives Before Politics

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
342

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Science and religion are not against each other in terms of establishing a basic moral lifestyle.[/quote]

That’s because science doesn’t try to establish a moral lifestyle. It can’t. There is nothing unscientific about rape, for instance.
[/quote]

lmao. You really think that science doesn’t show that there’s a negative effect caused by rape both to the psyche of the person receiving and the person giving? There is. And no, I’m not looking things up for people this year. If you disagree with it, look up the studies yourself.
[/quote]

No, science does no such thing, because judging what a “negative effect caused by rape both to the psyche of the person receiving and the person giving” would be a value judgment and as such beyond the realm of science. [/quote]

Negative effect= negative in in terms of health. These activities are anti-adaptive to the current society we live in. Rape, from both ends, makes it more difficult for those involved to create healthy bonds with those around them. We are a social animal, so this is unhealthy. That isn’t the complete story, but I don’t have time to make this much longer.

So you would say that science is useless in making health decisions? Perhaps we should give up these studies on drugs, alcohol, meditation, exposure to toxins, research on brain damage, PTSD, exercises and depression etc? What good are they going to do us if we cannot use them to make life decisions? People are changing their life-decision-making strategies from morals given to them by someone else to what science is telling them (which is sometimes wrong, of course). This applies to all facets of life.
[/quote]

So, you define health and then declare that some acts are “unhealthy”.

Thank you, we do not need science for that.

Let alone that the pursuit of health as an overriding value is of course a value judgment. healthy in and of itself is neither good not bad and so further and so on, he is right you are wrong, move on and do not make this very basic mistake again, thank you.

Or, keep backpedaling over the next 10 pages, this is PWI after all. [/quote]

So you would say that health is not important to the survival of species and therefore we don’t need science to define it?
[/quote]

Maybe I would say that, which would include several value judgments on my part and I would not hide behind “science” to hide them.

Or maybe I would, but I would also know that I was doing it and somewhat gracefully bow out if I happened to be caught.

Though on a personal note, as politiced as health care has become, “the survival of the species” is probably a footnote in an afterthought of an overly idealistic lobbyist.

343

Superflu. Two people on earth, man and woman. Woman decides she will not allow herself to become pregnant. Fortunately, there’s plenty of empty pharmacies. Immoral? What absolute authority has science uncovered that commands the continued existence (forget the ‘how to exist’) of the human species? In what way is it an authority, being that it has zero authority to exercise in this situation? Is it going to jail her in life? Follow her into death to judge her immortal soul?

344

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Easily. Morality=what is best for the health of you and those around you.

[/quote]

Assuming that is true, there is then the problem of determining what is best for oneself and those around oneself.

How do you know whether you’re being altruistic or not? As Socrates said, to know “how best to live” we must know what is “best.” How can an alleged scientific explanation for altruism provide a guiding moral path?

Because Americans on average have smaller families they don’t understand “family systems?”

[quote]
Science and religion are not against each other in terms of establishing a basic moral lifestyle.[/quote]

I don’t know what science has to do with anything. You think science provides a guide to morality? You haven’t addressed my central point.

345

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Science and religion are not against each other in terms of establishing a basic moral lifestyle.[/quote]

That’s because science doesn’t try to establish a moral lifestyle. It can’t. There is nothing unscientific about rape, for instance.
[/quote]

lmao. You really think that science doesn’t show that there’s a negative effect caused by rape both to the psyche of the person receiving and the person giving? There is. And no, I’m not looking things up for people this year. If you disagree with it, look up the studies yourself.
[/quote]

No, science does no such thing, because judging what a “negative effect caused by rape both to the psyche of the person receiving and the person giving” would be a value judgment and as such beyond the realm of science. [/quote]

Negative effect= negative in in terms of health. These activities are anti-adaptive to the current society we live in. Rape, from both ends, makes it more difficult for those involved to create healthy bonds with those around them. We are a social animal, so this is unhealthy. That isn’t the complete story, but I don’t have time to make this much longer.

So you would say that science is useless in making health decisions? Perhaps we should give up these studies on drugs, alcohol, meditation, exposure to toxins, research on brain damage, PTSD, exercises and depression etc? What good are they going to do us if we cannot use them to make life decisions? People are changing their life-decision-making strategies from morals given to them by someone else to what science is telling them (which is sometimes wrong, of course). This applies to all facets of life.
[/quote]

So, you define health and then declare that some acts are “unhealthy”.

Thank you, we do not need science for that.

Let alone that the pursuit of health as an overriding value is of course a value judgment. healthy in and of itself is neither good not bad and so further and so on, he is right you are wrong, move on and do not make this very basic mistake again, thank you.

Or, keep backpedaling over the next 10 pages, this is PWI after all. [/quote]

So you would say that health is not important to the survival of species and therefore we don’t need science to define it?
[/quote]

Maybe I would say that, which would include several value judgments on my part and I would not hide behind “science” to hide them.

Or maybe I would, but I would also know that I was doing it and somewhat gracefully bow out if I happened to be caught.

Though on a personal note, as politiced as health care has become, “the survival of the species” is probably a footnote in an afterthought of an overly idealistic lobbyist. [/quote]

Let’s take a society where rape MAY be a boon. For instance, there is a correlation between infant rape and adult aggression/mental disorder. It just so happens that infant/child rape is more common in societies with a long history of war. In this situation, rape may be adaptive, according to science. It has lasting effects on hormones. So going into these societies and making the moral judgement from an outsider’s standpoint that rape was morally wrong would be useless. Within the society, they have set up a code of their own morals that justifies what we would consider rape. This reflects what’s kept their population alive in light of aggressive neighbors.

From a moral standpoint,there’s no way to understand this. From a scientific standpoint, it makes perfect sense. The pressures of the environment are shaping the population. Different societies have different pressures. When I was speaking of rape, I was speaking in terms of the pressures our society faces. But in terms of if one answer applies all of the time and that answer is the one I provided? Of course not.

As I said, I didn’t write out the whole of the story regarding how science helps societies make what used to be moral decisions. It basically gives the user a lot more information as to what will feel good and pay off in the long term in whatever situation. This can be used where morals used to be.

All of this was just in reply to the question of how an atheist would make what would be considered a moral decision by a religious person.

346

[quote]Oleena wrote:

From a moral standpoint,there’s no way to understand this. From a scientific standpoint, it makes perfect sense. The pressures of the environment are shaping the population. Different societies have different pressures. When I was speaking of rape, I was speaking in terms of the pressures our society faces. But in terms of if one answer applies all of the time and that answer is the one I provided? Of course not.

[/quote]

It can’t even do so for OUR society. In the sense that there is no moral obligation, as uncovered by science, to maintain this society. The value in continuing this society is, well, a value judgment. Science can’t say “Yes, your society is how we’re SUPPOSED (opens a can of worms) to live.”

347

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Are you really arguing that America’s main motivator wasn’t/isn’t greed?
[/quote]

Are you really arguing that people elsewhere are motivated by something else?

[/quote]

What? Definitely not. [/quote]

I guess the point is the importance of moral relativism then? For example, the British occupation of India in the 1930’s was no different from the Japanese occupation of Burma. Absolutely. You see how everything works? Everyone is equally bad and equally good and history is just some amorphous mush to mould into whatever fits the party line.[/quote]

No. It was simply that greed is the same throughout. How that greed is acted on varies.

348

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

From a moral standpoint,there’s no way to understand this. From a scientific standpoint, it makes perfect sense. The pressures of the environment are shaping the population. Different societies have different pressures. When I was speaking of rape, I was speaking in terms of the pressures our society faces. But in terms of if one answer applies all of the time and that answer is the one I provided? Of course not.

[/quote]

It can’t even do so for OUR society. In the sense that there is no moral obligation, as uncovered by science, to maintain this society. The value in continuing this society is, well, a value judgment. Science can’t say “Yes, your society is how we’re SUPPOSED (opens a can of worms) to live.”
[/quote]

You didn’t pay attention to the whole post, apparently.

349

[quote]Grneyes wrote:<<< Excuse me? Whores? >>>[/quote]Yes, whores.[quote]Grneyes wrote:<<< Or because birth control has allowed women to be as sexually free as men? >>>[/quote]The debauchery you advance as freedom is whoredom for men too. Myself included. I lived a life of unrestrained whoredom before I was subdued by the sovereign King of the universe.

Left to my own devices I am every bit the self worshiping degenerate anyone else is. This country wouldn’t have lasted 15 minutes if your morality would have been ascendant in the 18th century colonies. Would’ve never been founded in the first place.

350

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

From a moral standpoint,there’s no way to understand this. From a scientific standpoint, it makes perfect sense. The pressures of the environment are shaping the population. Different societies have different pressures. When I was speaking of rape, I was speaking in terms of the pressures our society faces. But in terms of if one answer applies all of the time and that answer is the one I provided? Of course not.

[/quote]

It can’t even do so for OUR society. In the sense that there is no moral obligation, as uncovered by science, to maintain this society. The value in continuing this society is, well, a value judgment. Science can’t say “Yes, your society is how we’re SUPPOSED (opens a can of worms) to live.”
[/quote]

You didn’t pay attention to the whole post, apparently.[/quote]

No, I did. Edited: All of them. And they’re all been riddled with assumed value judgments, as has been pointed out to you. And even those assumption don’t lead you to say that infant rape is evil. Or that science establishes morality. You only highlight the transient state of nature and environment. And then let ‘morality’ flow with the current (besides your prime assumptions). Where a society of infant rape is as right as a society in which the practice is frowned upon. Or, looking at it from the other direction, a society that frowns upon the practice is as ‘bad’ as a society that practices infant rape. Oh wait, it makes no sense from a moral standpoint, as you said. So why imply science has anything to do with establishing ‘moral’ lifestyles?

351

Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.

The internal moral compass we have is a result of reasoning and being empathetic creatures. Religions love to co opt the natural aspects of humans, the idea of why we are the way we are.

All you need is two individuals interacting who are thinking, reasoning human beings empathetic to one another that understanding the consequences of their actions to develop a moral system. Life is generally preferable to death etc.

Those values arise as emergent phenomenon in the interactions of thinking beings.

355

I disagree with everybody. Morality is based on fortune cookies, crackerjack prizes and Warren Buffet’s still inoperable bunion.

356

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.

[/quote]

I understand the risk of home invasion. I decide it’s worth it. Knowing the risk I arm myself with a gun.

I don’t understand the risk of home invasion. I believe the occupants will be happy to see me, if they’re home. I bring a pie they can eat while I acquire their electronic goods and jewelry.

357

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason. When I speak of morality I’m referring to method by which we derive and apply our values. Both core values and what we do with them.

The internal moral compass we have is a result of reasoning and being empathetic creatures. Religions love to co opt the natural aspects of humans, the idea of why we are the way we are.

All you need is two individuals interacting who are thinking, reasoning human beings empathetic to one another that understanding the consequences of their actions to develop a moral system. Life is generally preferable to death etc.

Those values arise as emergent phenomenon in the interactions of thinking beings.

[/quote]

Then religion in history makes no sense. Atheism would’ve hit the ground running, radiating out self-evident godless systems of morality, skipping right past one of the most widespread human conditions throughout history, religiosity.

358

So anyways how do you believers explain morals for Atheists? Most Atheists would agree there are good moral principles in the bible but a result of where they originated are irrelevant.

359

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Anyways, I disagree with Oleena. I think the source of morals is reason.

[/quote]

Science is a form of testing reasoning. So we’re basically saying the same thing.

360

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

From a moral standpoint,there’s no way to understand this. From a scientific standpoint, it makes perfect sense. The pressures of the environment are shaping the population. Different societies have different pressures. When I was speaking of rape, I was speaking in terms of the pressures our society faces. But in terms of if one answer applies all of the time and that answer is the one I provided? Of course not.

[/quote]

It can’t even do so for OUR society. In the sense that there is no moral obligation, as uncovered by science, to maintain this society. The value in continuing this society is, well, a value judgment. Science can’t say “Yes, your society is how we’re SUPPOSED (opens a can of worms) to live.”
[/quote]

You didn’t pay attention to the whole post, apparently.[/quote]

No, I did. Edited: All of them. And they’re all been riddled with assumed value judgments, as has been pointed out to you. And even those assumption don’t lead you to say that infant rape is evil. Or that science establishes morality. You only highlight the transient state of nature and environment. And then let ‘morality’ flow with the current (besides your prime assumptions). Where a society of infant rape is as right as a society in which the practice is frowned upon. Or, looking at it from the other direction, a society that frowns upon the practice is as ‘bad’ as a society that practices infant rape. Oh wait, it makes no sense from a moral standpoint, as you said. So why imply science has anything to do with establishing ‘moral’ lifestyles? [/quote]

First of all, as I’ve said many times, it helps establish HEALTHY lifestyles. For an atheist, it provides a decision making process for answering questions that you, as a monotheist, consider moral. I was pointing out that acting in the way which is considered almost universally moral by western societies can be concluded as the right way to live through current knowledge about health, but these conclusions are dependent on the environment of the society.

As for robbing banks, you can easily conclude through economics how that wouldn’t be beneficial for yourself and others in the long run.

The problem is that your suggestions as to there being no reason why not to commit certain activities as an atheist are all short sighted. They will all come back to bite you or your kids. Your risk consideration process isn’t very good. Your understanding of how emotions and feeling connected as a social animal work also isn’t farsighted.