Arkouda @ Arkouda @lemmy.ca

No one could ever hate me more than I hate myself, so save your self some t

---

Read more

Posts

22

Comments

1,410

Joined

1 yr. ago

Yes. Poking and prodding everything with no mind for repercussion is unethical, and that is where "Science" is rooted.

Now jog on.

It is really ignorant to assume that 1) All "Western" culture is the same and 2) "Eastern" culture doesn't have numerous issues itself.

The point is the problem is cultural globally. Everyone has problems, and they are all rooted in their cultures.

Yes, because context matters. Exceptions don't make the rule, and speaking generally about things is allowed when they are related.

If you want to get into the semantics feel free. My statement is broad because it is a "shower thought".

This isn't debate club.

When everyone is looking at their phones, they aren't engaging with each other.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7366948/

This should start you off.

I didn't choose to be born and raised to eventually get an idea to build what caused me harm!

This is clearly the fault of my parents, and bob the builder!

No thanks, this is too shallow of a shower thought.

Why bother engaging in the first place if you won't follow up?

Globally our biggest problems are cultural. West vs. East rhetoric should have been left in Ancient Greece.

Stubs toe

"Fucking Capitalism"

Step one: Don't cross the border.

Step two: Repeat step one.

and it doesn’t mean we couldn’t have developed a system of morality in their absence.

The fact is we have no evidence to suggest our species has ever developed a system of morality without spirituality. Just because we may have been able to, evidence clearly demonstrates a trend of that either not working or not being an idea for precivilization humans.

Without religion and spirituality, we may have developed a better, more universal system of morality, rather than the patchwork of haphazard and contradictory traditions we currently enjoy. We’ll never know, because religion was created early in our history, and for the rest of eternity, we get to listen to asinine armchair theologians tell us “without religion, there would be no real morality.”

I am not arguing that religion is good. I am saying it was a means to an end, and we can point to all evidence we have and see that. Regardless of how you feel about it, not a single culture developed a moral system without first developing a spiritual one that we have evidence of.

Why do you think the context of the testing doesn't matter?

Scientific study is by nature unethical because one must do unethical things in it's pursuit. We have ethical frameworks around Scientific Study for a reason, and it isn't because it was doing fine without those frameworks.

Can you tell me what goes in to the Science of birdsong? I am unfamiliar with the field and expect you to be able to give me a detailed response on what goes in to it as it is your example.

You are missing the point and I won't restate what was already stated explicitly.

You could’ve said “science is unethical by nature”, or “science is, by nature, unethical”, with commas. Those would be well formulated sentences, which would be easier to read and make sense of.

You understood exactly what I meant.

About the questions: do you oppose all ethical guidelines in science? Are there any you’re fond of? Or should science be completely unimpeded, regardless of who it damages, or what purpose it serves? Can you give any examples?

I don't oppose ethical guidelines because they are required to keep Scientific Study in check. I never stated that Science did not need ethical frameworks, I said they are detrimental to Scientific Study. Ethical frameworks hold back Study because of the damage it can do. That doesn't mean progress is not slowed because of those safe guards.

If Scientific study is ethical, why do we require ethical frame works to keep Scientific study from being unethical?

As I said, very questionable.

It is only questionable because of the numerous assumptions you made about me as a person, followed by engaging me in bad faith because of those assumptions.

I think I’ve keyed into your phrasing, particularly “precursor”, in my answer. If “premoral behaviour” is a step in developing morality, does that make it a precursor?

Yes.

What happens between premoral behaviour and morality that develops it?

Mysticism and spirituality is what is between "premoral behavior" and "morality".

I would have assumed that reward/punishment behaviours between humans socially based on those “premoral” behaviours I described would have led to more nuanced moral systems that would have then been written into religious and spiritual practices.

What do you think happens between premorality and morality?

We had spiritual practices before written word. These were kept through oral histories.

I see the path to the idea of morality like this:

Once a species begins to show "premoral behaviors" (Things like demonstration of altruism to other members of the species) overtime these behaviors ingrain into that specific population of the species. However, these animals will still go against those behaviors and will require as you said a "reward/punishment" system. This helps to reinforce those behaviors within that specific group.

This will work for a few dozen people, but even then there would be dissent and disagreement over what is and isn't acceptable leading to violations of rules in place. The consequence is violence.

What I believe was needed to get past this point and have larger groups of humans work together was an idea that being "good" was "bigger than us". Spirituality is that step from "rules" to "morally correct". Without the idea of something bigger making the rules and declaring actions "good", we are simply making rules that other agree and disagree with that require enforcement through violence.

Which isn't to say that Religion isn't a history of violence and disagreement, but there is a difference between "Rule enforced by Man" and "Rule enforced by an all powerful being" when trying to get a group of people to act "appropriately" in precivilization humans. "I can kill you if I disagree, but this "God" thing sounds like I don't want a piece of that".

does a higher power give us our morals?

No. All evidence suggest there is no God, no afterlife, and nothing special about our species beyond becoming smart enough to kill ourselves.

I know what ethical means. Do you know what asinine means?

I never said that. You have a reach like Mr. Tickle.