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

1,423

Joined

1 yr. ago

How can we have a proper double blind study if we are forced to tell the participants information that could impact the results of the study in order to gain informed consent?

Without ethics in Science we have a detailed understanding of our anatomy, the ability to transplant organs, numerous life saving medications, space travel, understanding of the human mind, etc.

Fact of the matter is when "ethics" are imposed on Scientific study, Scientific study is hindered, so Scientific study cannot be ethical if it is to be successful.

Is the sentence hard to understand?

It doesn’t have to be spiritual or religious!

But historically, according to all available evidence, it was spiritualism and religion that promoted these behaviors in a more widespread way leading to larger groups of people coexisting.

The behavior you are referencing is seen in other species and known as "premoral behavior". I do not deny that those behaviors benefit the group, what I am saying is it is not a demonstration of morality. It is however the first step into developing morality.

Not at all what I said, which is why I said earlier I sincerely do not believe you understand English well enough to continue having this conversation.

Take care

So explain slavery. That was once morraly good. Hell, some still do.

What is there to explain? We aren't the only species on the planet who take slaves.

There is no such thing that is universally good ot bad. If it were it would apply universally not just to the ingrown.

I know. Hasn't stopped our species from fighting about it. Which is why my point is something "Bigger than humans" was required to unify our species beyond small groups who agree with one another.

We are seeing it all over thr world in real time. Murder should be a universally condemned act yet we see “moral” people screaming for the death of people they deemed unworthy every day

I know. Doesn't change my point.

I am not arguing that "morality" is a universal inherent thing. In fact, I am arguing that it is not universal, not inherent, and you are supporting my point which is that Spirituality and Religion preclude Morality because "morality" is not universal and "something bigger than our species" was required to move beyond family sized units.

That does not mean it worked and we now live in a morally sound utopia.

"God is all knowing, and God is all seeing. Just who do you think you are to change his mind? He already knows what you want, and decided that you didn't need it. So don't bother asking for cures or the answer, God is the one who gave you the cancer!"

Dead - Voltaire

Morality is a word given to a specific idea, i.e. a universal set of rules for "Good" and "Bad" that are believed to be undeniable, and is different from "rules" or "laws" prescribed to live cohesively.

If we agree not to murder each other to the benefit of the group, we are not saying we won't kill each other if it no longer benefits the group. If we agree that murder is inherently wrong, we are saying that we won't kill each other even if it does benefit the group.

Morality requires more than simply agreeing to not do something. Simply abiding by a rule in animals is called "premoral behavior", which assumes they are not acting with morality but the precursor to it. Much like we would have before developing those basic "rules" into a morality that has been historically done through spirituality.

That isn't "morality".

Excessive device use has been demonstrated to be highly detrimental to adults. The recommendation is no more than one hour a day.

In a world where no one listens to that advice and actively acts against it, children can only benefit from 8 hours a day where they are not allowed access and must instead be social humans for a while.

There’s much more to schools than just focus in classes.

Like in person socialization and relationship building?

I would love to see the archaeological evidence that suggests our species begun exploring "morality" through agreeing on certain behaviors being "good" or "bad". Unfortunately all evidence we have on early humans demonstrates our species has been "spiritual", e.g. believing in a greater force beyond our control that determines outcomes and promotes group unity, as long as we were leaving a mark on the world that outlasted our bodies.

You can disagree, but that doesn't change what we know about early humans and their early belief systems, and that we lack any supporting evidence for your point.

Okay, so you’re just stringing together big words to try and sound smarter than you are, because “precursor of spirituality and religion” is a nonsense phrase.

Whatever you say buddy. Have fun being angry at a thought.

I would argue that morality came before religion or spirituality, and therefore does not require either of them to exist.

My argument is that a “unified morality” can only be the result of a Spiritual or Religious belief structure due to the subjective nature of morality, the need for it to be easily communicated and enforced, and the need for a “bigger than me” idea to connect the species to in order to follow.

I support this by the fact that the evidence we have of Human civilization, and precivilization humans, demonstrates a spiritual belief structure in all documented groups.

This is not to say that morality in the modern age requires either Spirituality or Religion, because it doesn’t due to the thousands of years of “debate”, but that the formation of these things were necessary to bring our species together into larger groups because there is no inherent moral code in humans, and we are simply animals who need to be taught everything to survive by our elders and peers.

I do not believe in a “God” and I am not arguing that one is required for morality to exist, but I am saying that spirituality is the precursor to the idea of “morality” and required for “morality” to form in the first place.

Never a waste of time to speak truth.

The arrogance on you is absurd. Last chance to make a point month old account.

Thank you for listening and engaging! Also, Happy Cake day!

I know what they are, that doesn't change my point.

How do you define morality?

That is what I meant in the context I am using it in. When you say words you assume the person listening understands the definition of the word in order to understand the over all statement in context.

That is how words work.

Now do you have a point to make about my very clear statement, or do you want to go start a fight elsewhere?

Does an Elephant have morals?

Empathy isn't inherent, and that is not current science.

Take care.