INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

The Science of Morality

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author

User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 171
Joined: May 27th, 2012, 2:29 am

Re: The Science of Morality

#2 Post by Kismet » July 10th, 2012, 7:41 am

Science may indeed shed a good deal of light on moral issues I now think... not exhaustively, but to be sure it can pave the way and clear up a lot of the content about which we raise moral issues. For instance, a culture that learns eating a certain type of frog is poisonous may plug in health concerns of well-being into their moral calculus, whereas before it was an infallible religious rite.

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: The Science of Morality

#3 Post by Fia » July 10th, 2012, 10:31 am

How can not eating a certain type of frog be an 'infallible religious rite'? :shrug:

User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 171
Joined: May 27th, 2012, 2:29 am

Re: The Science of Morality

#4 Post by Kismet » July 10th, 2012, 12:33 pm

Fia wrote:How can not eating a certain type of frog be an 'infallible religious rite'? :shrug:
The cultural superego does not respect supposed modern 'rational concepts' built-into the fabric of reality.

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: The Science of Morality

#5 Post by Fia » July 10th, 2012, 1:11 pm

'Cultural superego'???? 'fabric of reality'???? Could I have subtitles in plain English, please, Kismet?

User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 171
Joined: May 27th, 2012, 2:29 am

Re: The Science of Morality

#6 Post by Kismet » July 10th, 2012, 1:14 pm

Fia wrote:'Cultural superego'???? 'fabric of reality'???? Could I have subtitles in plain English, please, Kismet?
Cultural superego, in other words what a culture takes itself to be. Like wearing fifteen copper rings on your neck. Obviously not keeping in with what is biologically permissible or favourable. But yet, there it is.

We think there are 'oughts' built into reality. Such as eating healthy is 'good' for you. Other cultures don't. They have a different superego which spurns such pragmatic concerns.

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: The Science of Morality

#7 Post by Fia » July 10th, 2012, 1:28 pm

Ah, I think you are perhaps getting your sociological and Freudian psychological terminology confused. Do you mean cultural mores? - a culture in itself surely can't have ego or indeed superego.

I still don't get your 'oughts built into reality'. Where people don't have enough food, of course 'healthy eating' is irrelevant, as they are just trying to eat something every day...

User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 171
Joined: May 27th, 2012, 2:29 am

Re: The Science of Morality

#8 Post by Kismet » July 10th, 2012, 1:31 pm

Fia wrote:Ah, I think you are perhaps getting your sociological and Freudian psychological terminology confused. Do you mean cultural mores? - a culture in itself surely can't have ego or indeed superego.

I still don't get your 'oughts built into reality'. Where people don't have enough food, of course 'healthy eating' is irrelevant, as they are just trying to eat something every day...
Look it up ;)

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: The Science of Morality

#9 Post by Tetenterre » July 10th, 2012, 2:09 pm

Fia wrote: Could I have subtitles in plain English, please, Kismet?
Careful, Fia -- s/he's likely to get them from here! :D
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 171
Joined: May 27th, 2012, 2:29 am

Re: The Science of Morality

#10 Post by Kismet » July 10th, 2012, 11:59 pm

Tetenterre wrote:
Fia wrote: Could I have subtitles in plain English, please, Kismet?
Careful, Fia -- s/he's likely to get them from here! :D
Deepak Chopra is indeed a wise man with much practical wisdom and insight underneath his belt. But I agree some of the things he churns out could be less banal.

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The Science of Morality

#11 Post by Altfish » July 11th, 2012, 7:48 am

Kismet wrote:Deepak Chopra is indeed a wise man with much practical wisdom and insight underneath his belt.... .
Do you have any evidence for that :laughter:

User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 171
Joined: May 27th, 2012, 2:29 am

Re: The Science of Morality

#12 Post by Kismet » July 13th, 2012, 6:02 am

Altfish wrote:
Kismet wrote:Deepak Chopra is indeed a wise man with much practical wisdom and insight underneath his belt.... .
Do you have any evidence for that :laughter:
He has more money than you I bet. :wink:

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The Science of Morality

#13 Post by animist » July 13th, 2012, 6:44 am

Fia wrote:How can not eating a certain type of frog be an 'infallible religious rite'? :shrug:
possibly Kismet compounds his difficult ideas with unclear expression. I think what he meant here was that the eating of a poisonous frog was at one time an infallible religious rite but that more secular and scientific considerations of health changed perceptions in the society concerned

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The Science of Morality

#14 Post by Altfish » July 13th, 2012, 7:34 am

Kismet wrote:
Altfish wrote:
Kismet wrote:Deepak Chopra is indeed a wise man with much practical wisdom and insight underneath his belt.... .
Do you have any evidence for that :laughter:
He has more money than you I bet. :wink:
He may well have, so do many footballers, but it does not make them, "...wise man with much practical wisdom and insight underneath his belt..."

User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 171
Joined: May 27th, 2012, 2:29 am

Re: The Science of Morality

#15 Post by Kismet » July 13th, 2012, 10:12 pm

Altfish wrote: He may well have, so do many footballers, but it does not make them, "...wise man with much practical wisdom and insight underneath his belt..."
Also, he's published a lot of interesting books thats changed people's lives for the better I hear. Must count for something. But perhaps you are too jaded to admit it. I don't know. :hilarity:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Science of Morality

#16 Post by Alan H » July 13th, 2012, 10:42 pm

Kismet wrote:
Altfish wrote: He may well have, so do many footballers, but it does not make them, "...wise man with much practical wisdom and insight underneath his belt..."
Also, he's published a lot of interesting books thats changed people's lives for the better I hear. Must count for something. But perhaps you are too jaded to admit it. I don't know. :hilarity:
I'm sure a lot of people felt their lives changed for the better after reading Mein Kampf. It counts for nothing.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 171
Joined: May 27th, 2012, 2:29 am

Re: The Science of Morality

#17 Post by Kismet » July 13th, 2012, 10:43 pm

Alan H wrote:
Kismet wrote:
Altfish wrote: He may well have, so do many footballers, but it does not make them, "...wise man with much practical wisdom and insight underneath his belt..."
Also, he's published a lot of interesting books thats changed people's lives for the better I hear. Must count for something. But perhaps you are too jaded to admit it. I don't know. :hilarity:
I'm sure a lot of people felt their lives changed for the better after reading Mein Kampf. It counts for nothing.
Mein Kampf counts for something. There's just better books; like Chopra's.

Crack one open.

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The Science of Morality

#18 Post by Altfish » July 13th, 2012, 11:05 pm

Kismet wrote:
Altfish wrote: He may well have, so do many footballers, but it does not make them, "...wise man with much practical wisdom and insight underneath his belt..."
Also, he's published a lot of interesting books thats changed people's lives for the better I hear. Must count for something. But perhaps you are too jaded to admit it. I don't know. :hilarity:
The conclusions you jump to are frightening, Kismet. Priceless :deadhorse:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The Science of Morality

#19 Post by Alan H » July 13th, 2012, 11:31 pm

Kismet wrote:There's just better books; like Chopra's.
Who is the judge of it being a better book? You?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 171
Joined: May 27th, 2012, 2:29 am

Re: The Science of Morality

#20 Post by Kismet » July 14th, 2012, 3:56 am

Alan H wrote:
Kismet wrote:There's just better books; like Chopra's.
Who is the judge of it being a better book? You?
Absolutely. When it comes to the moral caliber of books like Mein Kampf and Deepak's books which have given hope to many millions of people, I think its obvious where quality resides.

As for historical/political/literary significance, well, I suppose Mein Kampf.

I judge, but I don't attack and judge, as I see many people doing.

Post Reply