Philosophical Debate Thread - What is the meaning of everything?
205 replies, posted
I can conceive of situations where it's logically possible that nobody wants to murder anyone, where killing somebody would be for the best. Hence as a universal moral rule, it's inadequate.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27119323]what? no thats just an example
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
you mean culturally. yes some cultures allow you to kill things that could threaten the culture.
That could be explained by memetics.[/QUOTE]
We don't kill for food?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;27119351]I can conceive of situations where it's logically possible that nobody wants to murder anyone, where killing somebody would be for the best. Hence as a universal moral rule, it's inadequate.[/QUOTE]
I never said it was never ok to murder. I said that many situation dont require murder.
there is no universal moral rule.
I still don't understand how you think morality can exist purely based on science. Science doesn't give us any indication that staying alive (for example) is even worth doing.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;27119434]I still don't understand how you think morality can exist purely based on science. Science doesn't give us any indication that staying alive (for example) is even worth doing.[/QUOTE]
emphasis on the word purely
[QUOTE=Robbobin;27119434]I still don't understand how you think morality can exist purely based on science. Science doesn't give us any indication that staying alive (for example) is even worth doing.[/QUOTE]
you stay alive because it feels good. you use science to stay alive.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27119447]you stay alive because it feels good. you use science to stay alive.[/QUOTE]
Science never indicated that feeling good is worth doing.
[QUOTE=Asphyxia;27094087]What is the meaning of life? (Despite being cliche', it's a serious question)
[/QUOTE]
There isn't one, applying a meaning to it would be the same as applying a meaning to a asteroid falling into orbit with a star.
[QUOTE=No_0ne;27119493]There isn't one, applying a meaning to it would be the same as applying a meaning to a asteroid falling into orbit with a star.[/QUOTE]
I guess I need to do some serious re-writing of the OP tomorrow.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;27119476]Science never indicated that feeling good is worth doing.[/QUOTE]
yea but my body and mind does.
Liking the things I am genetically and environmentally programmed to like doesnt really have to do with anything.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27119516]yea but my body and mind does.
Liking the things I am genetically and environmentally programmed to like doesnt really have to do with anything.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying it isn't anything to do with science? Which is the opposite of what you said earlier
I think whether you like it or not, you're being philosophical. Philosophy is about being rational and synthesizing answers that other schools of thought don't necessarily do. Science should be our method of rationality, I agree on that point.
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
I don't understand what you're arguing for :ohdear:
[QUOTE=frost13s;27119531]So you're saying it isn't anything to do with science? Which is the opposite of what you said earlier[/QUOTE]
first off I didnt say that. 2ndly how can the science which is a tool used for answering questions make my filling love of food, sex or love of videogames not exist (well yes it can alter it)? I said science can answer moral questions not stop my heart from beating (ok yes it can with technology but I hope you know what im saying)
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;27119554]I don't understand what you're arguing for :ohdear:[/QUOTE]
That moral questions can be answered with the help of science.
also so can other Philosophical questions.
While science can show us the likely outcome of events, it doesn't tell us which outcome is the best one. This is where philosophy comes in.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;27119591]While science can show us the likely outcome of events, it doesn't tell us which outcome is the best one. This is where philosophy comes in.[/QUOTE]
Well if you have a goal then yes it can.
if your plan is to feed the most people science can show how to make the best outcome of events for that goal. if you mean a universal good/evil thing then there is no best answer because there is no such thing as good an evil.
I guess this could be an example of how science helps. Is turning blacks into slaves right? well blacks arnt really that different and are noe way less deserving of freedom because they both react to environment the same and are not genetically evil (even though there isnt such a thing) so they would deserve just as many rights as a white person. that is an example.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27119624]Well if you have a goal then yes it can.
if your plan is to feed the most people science can show how to make the best outcome of events for that goal. if you mean a universal good/evil thing then there is no best answer because there is no such thing as good an evil.[/QUOTE]
Donating to charity isn't good? Genocide isn't evil?
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27119561]That moral questions can be answered with the help of science.
also so can other Philosophical questions.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone was ever disputing this, haha. The sciences are invaluable in making ethical decisions. Philosophy is essentially just piecing together pieces of information and synthesizing answers.
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=frost13s;27119630]Donating to charity isn't good? Genocide isn't evil?[/QUOTE]
I believe in emotivism, where moral claims like "X is good" or "Y is bad" are more adequately described as "Yay to X" or "Boo to Y". I agree with imasillypiggy on this point.
[QUOTE=frost13s;27119630]Donating to charity isn't good? Genocide isn't evil?[/QUOTE]
technically because of environment the person that did it isnt evil or good and same with the act.
it doesnt mean I wont like a person more because the donate to charity. but it does mean they were environmentally shaped differently.
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;27119634]I don't think anyone was ever disputing this, haha. The sciences are invaluable in making ethical decisions. Philosophy is essentially just piecing together pieces of information and synthesizing answers.
[editline]1st January 2011[/editline]
I believe in emotivism, where moral claims like "X is good" or "Y is bad" are more adequately described as "Yay to X" or "Boo to Y". I agree with imasillypiggy on this point.[/QUOTE]
Well would you call a Philosophy a science then if it used the information logically?
Unless it was put into an art form.
I thought you initially meant that science is adequate to use [i]instead[/i] of philosophy. I don't think anyone is really denying that science is invaluable in making ethical/metaphysical decisions. As I see it, science is kind of like the variable you plug into an equation, while the equation is the philosophical argument.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;27119695]I thought you initially meant that science is adequate to use [i]instead[/i] of philosophy. I don't think anyone is really denying that science is invaluable in making ethical/metaphysical decisions. As I see it, science is kind of like the variable you plug into an equation, while the equation is the philosophical argument.[/QUOTE]
Im saying that science can help. I understand that ethics come from environment and not seen as a science but an ethical question needs science in order to find the answer. in other words someone who knows a lot about the way animals work would probably be better ethically I guess you could say with animals then someone who is not because he would understand how they work. You cant say ethics or outside of science because you need science in order to tell whats reasonable. That is if the goal of ethics is to make fairness.
edit
ITT: the ethical goal is environment but the way to do it is science, that why killing black people is wrong.
[QUOTE=LF9000;27112417]C and G are "heavenly" because their frequencies are in a 2:3 ratio.
Do some research next time.[/QUOTE]
Saying that a few specific ratios dictate consonance and dissonance in music, or that our western consonances are a natural occurrence that we discovered is stupid.
I'm not saying that it's irrelevant, but certain things also sound good to us because we've grown up with it. Some cultures think their 24 tone scales are just fine.
And besides, our western system of Equal Temperament isn't even in tune with the natural overtone series.
Also, why did you describe a perfect fifth as heavenly?
The Meaning is Bono
[IMG]http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/57000/Bono-57049.jpg[/IMG]
[editline]
[/editline]
JK all hail :cthulhu:
I asked /sci/ the moral question and I think this is the best answer
[quote]It (science) can tell what is the best way to achieve a moral goal.
It can tell what is beneficial and what is harmful.
It can teach us to use our reason instead of acting upon sudden urges like fear, anger disgust and so on.
It can tell how our brains work, how our social interactions work, and how to improve them.
Scientific knowledge should be fundamental to the development of our morality.[/quote]
Other have said that with science and new information you can learn about morals and revise them. like not hating blacks anymore when realizing they are genetically and environmentally able to be just as good as us.
edit
since you guys believe that morals cant be right or wrong how can you rate it dumb?
its kind of hypocritical once you think about it. but really you got a nejerk reaction reaction because I said science can help with morals so you rated it dumb without even thinking about it.
I think about these types of things all the time, and I'm a strong christian, but its hard to explain what I believe what the meaning of everything is.
[QUOTE]Scientific knowledge should be fundamental to the development of our morality.[/QUOTE]
Uhh, yeah.
Mindcontrol :tinfoil:
The meaning of life for me is to help mankind discover the meaning of life.
We've got nothing concrete to go by, so what do we have to lose?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.