curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

Do you also think the morality would change over time? Or is the morality for man always the same regardless of time and place? Do you advocate for situational ethics?

---

" The moral arc bends towards justice." MLK

---

We are asking for specificity and y'all continue to give vague answers. It is becoming more and more apparent that y'all haven't thought this through.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Quite the contrary. I have given you a basis for making judgements, that relies upon empirical objective evidence through applying science to determine what is harmful to wellbeing. Ultimately, a given society or culture has to adopt those results. A theocratic approach basis is rooted in dogma. My approach would determine stoning is immoral, because it harms the victims wellbeing. A theocratic approach would determine stoning is a god's moral requirement because some shaman declares it.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

Do you also think the morality would change over time? Or is the morality for man always the same regardless of time and place? Do you advocate for situational ethics?

---

" The moral arc bends towards justice." MLK

---

We are asking for specificity and y'all continue to give vague answers. It is becoming more and more apparent that y'all haven't thought this through.

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash: "If I don't address each and every one of your questions it is because they simply aren't worth responding to."

Please keep that thought in mind, the next time you are unhappy because people don't answer when and how you demand.

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash: "If I don't address each and every one of your questions it is because they simply aren't worth responding to."

Please keep that thought in mind, the next time you are unhappy because people don't answer when and how you demand.

---

Sure thing.

I just don't like being patronized. I started this journey as a Christian, the idea that I'd risk my immortal soul without any thought is insulting. Wouldn't you agree?

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

My tribe doesn't do it.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

My tribe doesn't do it.

---

Why not?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Altruism provides an evolutionary advantage.

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

My tribe doesn't do it.

---

Why not?

---

It requires the initiation of force against another.

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

My tribe doesn't do it.

---

Why not?

---

It requires the initiation of force against another.

---

Which is a problem because...?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Altruism provides an evolutionary advantage.

---

It does, usually by way of religion as a mechanism. Does that mean I should believe in one, both, or neither?

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

My tribe doesn't do it.

---

Why not?

---

It requires the initiation of force against another.

---

Which is a problem because...?

---

It conflicts with my values. This is not difficult.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

My tribe doesn't do it.

---

Why not?

---

It requires the initiation of force against another.

---

Which is a problem because...?

---

It conflicts with my values. This is not difficult.

---

Initiating force against another conflicts with your values? So ...no police, then??

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

My tribe doesn't do it.

---

Why not?

---

It requires the initiation of force against another.

---

Which is a problem because...?

---

It conflicts with my values. This is not difficult.

---

Initiating force against another conflicts with your values? So ...no police, then??

---

Um what?

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

My tribe doesn't do it.

---

Why not?

---

It requires the initiation of force against another.

---

Which is a problem because...?

---

It conflicts with my values. This is not difficult.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

My tribe doesn't do it.

---

Why not?

---

It requires the initiation of force against another.

---

Which is a problem because...?

---

It conflicts with my values. This is not difficult.

---

Initiating force against another conflicts with your values? So ...no police, then??

---

Um what?

---

Your words.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

My tribe doesn't do it.

---

Why not?

---

It requires the initiation of force against another.

---

Which is a problem because...?

---

It conflicts with my values. This is not difficult.

---

And on what do you base your values?

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

I've tried to get his across before. Science is the method to determine what is harmful to the wellbeing of others. It's not going to be in the best interest of everyone's well being to benefit from harm to others. Tribalism is an anachronism in a world where global cooperation is in everyone's best interest.

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

My tribe doesn't do it.

---

Why not?

---

It requires the initiation of force against another.

---

Which is a problem because...?

---

It conflicts with my values. This is not difficult.

---

And on what do you base your values?

---

Thanks. Exactly my point.

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

My tribe doesn't do it.

---

Why not?

---

It requires the initiation of force against another.

---

Which is a problem because...?

---

It conflicts with my values. This is not difficult.

---

And on what do you base your values?

---

Thanks. Exactly my point.

---

Human experience, same as religions.

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

But why should we use the "best interests in terms of harm and well being" as a criterion? Perhaps better criteria are more along the lines of what is best for me in the short term regardless of consequences to others since in a materialist world YOLO and I think I should maximize my position, pleasures, experiences, etc in whatever way I want.

---

When hominids were limited in numbers and cognitive skills, your YOLO approach, or survival of the individual, and individual solitude, was most likely the norm. However, as our cognitive skills evolved, our ability to communicate evolved, our ability to develop and us tools evolved, and our numbers grew, it became necessary to work together cooperatively, with reliable standards of behavior in order to prosper and survive. Your YOLO philosophy, to the extent that it negatively impacts others wellbeing, disrupts necessary order for collective wellbeing.

---

I understand all that. Simply pointing out that you offer no basis for selecting any criterion that doesn't require a value judgment based on some arbitrary notion. This is no different in kind from some "theocratic approach".

---

Do you want judgements based upon science and what causes harm, or upon what a shaman says?

---

If something harms another tribe, but benefits my tribe, and the benefits to my tribe can only be accrued by harming another tribe, how does your "science" judge?

---

My tribe doesn't do it.

---

Why not?

---

It requires the initiation of force against another.

---

Which is a problem because...?

---

It conflicts with my values. This is not difficult.

---

And on what do you base your values?

---

Thanks. Exactly my point.

---

Human experience, same as religions.

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Altruism provides an evolutionary advantage.

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Altruism provides an evolutionary advantage.

---

So does rape by force Genghis Khan style.

---