Why do contemporary scientists always assume that ethics, morality and politics have easy clear cut answers similar to positivistic science?
I know we can argue about what science really is and so forth, but I just think that very often the New Atheist who are scientists, and pop-scientists in general think that ethical and political problems are as easy to solve as creating facts in a lab.
Xavier Rodriguez
The absolute state of STEM.
Xavier Gray
Because they think empiricism can be applied to everything where there is a right and a wrong not shades of grey
Thomas Carter
Based Black Science Man, philosophers and historians btfo
Bentley Miller
>NdGT >(((scientist)))
Jackson Williams
He is smart for a negro.
Leo Russell
He's smart, but not very wise.
Owen Perez
His IQ is about 100, which is very high for his race.
Jaxson Rogers
Most armed conflict happened because different groups wanted control over land though
Jayden Thomas
Empiricism may not always be useful for distinguishing right and wrong, but it can be used to separate better from worse.
James Perry
Yeah, but that's because these groups valued land. So it's about values, not facts, and yet plebs like NDT probably wants it to be as autisticly easy as establishing scientific facts.
Joshua Wood
Because they aren't philosophers and most of us do truly believe that given the proper info people will act in better and more harmonious ways. Of course we aren't good at arguing this since our persuasion usually comes from evidence instead of logic.
Austin Walker
Back to pol, fuckwit
Ayden Phillips
>most of us do truly believe that given the proper info people will act in better and more harmonious ways
How can you be so sure? World War 2 was just 75 years ago, and it's not like humanity has stopped going to war the last 3 generations.
Bentley Gray
Why sjws are so disrespectful and impolite. No wonder they are universally despised.
Angel King
>contemporary scientists Might as well be talking about the first cunt off the streets when not specifically addressing said scientist's specialty. Just like the average person lacks the education to grasp the complexity of physics, chemistry, etc, so do scientists lack the education to grasp the complexity of humanistic issues.
William Rogers
If you are a Kantian utilitarian maybe. Other systems of morality exist.
Robert Taylor
>so do scientists lack the education to grasp the complexity of humanistic issues.
Good for them.
Colton Barnes
Ideology Positivism, and capitalism rule the world now.
Jacob Ward
Stop posting this anti-semitic crap. Back to /pol/
John Long
>Kantian utilitarian
Adam Lee
>If you are a Kantian utilitarian maybe. >Kantian utilitarian
Anthony Kelly
You don't seem to get it. Right and wrong are the domain of morality. Better and worse, in terms of costs and benefits, can be assessed largely empirically. That can inform a moral decision, but you're kind of just proving NDT's point.
Gabriel Hill
>other types of utilitarians can’t exist
Colton Roberts
>Better and worse, in terms of costs and benefits, can be assessed largely empirically. is wiping out the Jewish race better or worse for the greatest number of people in the long run?
William Gutierrez
The better of course.
Jaxson Bennett
this
Joshua Anderson
>literally contradictory philosophical positions >can coexist >what is cognitive dissonance
Adam Ross
...
Justin Brown
What are the costs and benefits? If you can, try to be serious.
Samuel Davis
100 is pretty high for a black person, objectively
Logan Roberts
It's 2 standard deviantions above their average (70). It's like an IQ of 130 for a normal human.
Luke Green
>anti-semitic There was nothing antisemitic in his posts, Schlomo.
Lincoln Bell
back to Africa, Tyrone
Hunter Bennett
It was implied that since capitalists rule the world, the jews rule the world. It's always the same anti semitic conspiracy theories.
Austin Parker
>It was implied that since capitalists rule the world, the jews rule the world. what is this projection shit?
Parker Howard
What the fuck? He had an image of Zizek you retard. He's a Marxist. And yeah, Jews do rule the world.
Jayden Jenkins
The absolute state of false flagging.
Aiden Thompson
Its not easy, but there are scientific answers we can answer in those domains.
Neil Tyson is bit bankrupt on philosophical depth, so he wouldn't be a good representation of this argument. Sam Harris would make a good image for this effort to change the minds of people.
Nicholas Smith
Back to Scandinavia, Cletus
Easton Allen
>Jews >Soviet Union Pick one.
Gavin Lopez
>Back to Scandinavia, Cletus You should have said Britain, mate.
Hudson Hernandez
>Neil Tyson is bit bankrupt on philosophical depth, so he wouldn't be a good representation of this argument. Sam Harris would make a good image for this effort to change the minds of people.
Reported for blatant racism.
Logan Gomez
Most bolshevik leaders were jew.
Jack Bennett
Better to let the meat mechanics do the late-stage dabbling.
Carson Baker
>anglo-saxons snowniggers are originally from Britain
Jose Torres
As I said, it's anti semite.
Sebastian Ward
Sombody with the name cletus is probably scots-Irish.
Liam Gomez
>but there are scientific answers we can answer in those domains.
Like what? All those answers depend upon hypotheticals.
Chase Turner
Isn't that meme, although Jews were disproportionately represented they didn't form a majoirty? At any rate, Stalinism as well as the USSR post-Stalin was obviously incompatible with international Jewry.
Lincoln Johnson
Could you provide a source for that?
Sebastian Flores
>ask a serious question on Veeky Forums >entire thread derailed by /pol/acks
As a group of people who is so opposed to immigration, you guys sure don't know how to stop emigrating to other boards in order to shitpost.
Jackson Stewart
Moral questions aren't hypothetical, they're very much grounded in reality.
The bases for ethics and morals are simple. To stop/reduce suffering and to better ourselves/others. If you accept this axiom, then finding a moral/ethical system using science is very much doable. In most cases, very easy, in some cases, bit difficult due to lack of depth analysis, but overall, we can achieve a gradual pattern for which we can draw a reasonable and concise solution. Suppose we have two actions, one is beating someone up and the other is hugging them and comforting them. We can scientifically analyze each results and find out which is better/moral/ethical action. We can test out lab conditions and measure their brain activities, we can measure their stress level, we can measure their pain threshold, etc. We'd find a very conclusive answer.
In the past, we have simply stated, science can't understand love, art, language, pain, suffering, etc. But now we have a much better grasp of the brain and human behaviors, so we can make a very reasonable conclusion based on an agreed upon set/s of axiom. Using the above two simple actions and expanding it to every possible human action, we can chart a graph which would compare each action against others. Ofcourse that's a pointless task, but the system is there in place for a rudimentary and elementary analysis. Over time, this sort of research/work can become more and more precise with artificial intelligence offloading all of the scenarios and drawing a reasonable and rational conclusion.
Easton Lopez
>The bases for ethics and morals are simple. To stop/reduce suffering and to better ourselves/others.
Sam Harris go to sleep.
Jordan Reyes
and this is how we end in a brave new world dystopia.
Michael Richardson
>If you accept this axiom
That's literally the point of my writing "hypothetical".
Hypothetical imperatives aren't sufficient, following Kant, to establish moral rules.
I can say: "If you want to reduce suffering in the world, you should do XYZ", but this doesn't change the fact that it's a choice to want to reduce suffering in the first place.
So yes, if you accept Harris' axiom of well-being, most of what he says follows, but he hasn't demonstrated that this axiom is *really* what morality is about.
Logan King
A great deal of armed conflict also comes from two different groups believing nearly the exact same thing. For example, two or more separate groups might decide that controlling a particular strait or peninsula is strategically vital, and then they end up going to war over who gets to control it.
Jonathan Phillips
It's only a choice to psychopaths. Almost every sane person wants to reduce suffering but in no way does that mean they are dedicated enough to it to do something meaningful
Ian Lewis
> reduce suffering but in no way does that mean they are dedicated enough to it to do something meaningful
why? to end a life is so easy.
Colton Barnes
obviously, in your example, they disagree over who should be the owner of that strategic location
Angel Wilson
>It's only a choice to psychopaths.
This is just a copout.
So when you discipline your child by grounding them you are being psychopathic? Grounding a child for some wrong they did, obviously causes emotional distress, so doing it is counter do Harris' moral axiom.
Luke Morris
I'm shocked with the antisemitism on this tnread.
Carson Hill
You seemed to miss the point. You're grounding the child to teach him about the consequences of his actions, so that he may later on take responsibility and better fit within society. Overall, the idea is still to increase wellbeing and reduce suffering in the long run.
Daniel Bennett
So really what you're saying is that Harris is just a garden-variety consequentialist, and that shit like torture can be acceptable as long as you manipulated the factors so as to make it seem like you're doing it to increase well-being for most people.
Angel Hughes
nope
Adam Jones
Science isn't easy by any stretch of the imagination, fag. Maybe if you had ever solved a difficult problem in your life, you'd know the difference between not easy and impossible.
Even psychopaths can understand that reduction of suffering is a good thing. They may not "feel" it, but they can understand the effects of such a world.
So guy's idea about reduction of suffering not being a moral/ethical basis is just intellectual dishonesty play with relativism garbage. "DUDE KILLING IS SAME AS NOT KILLING"
Matthew Baker
If that's so, i stand corrected.
Ethan Bailey
Actually he's right,it's the phenomenon of Ulster Scot mass migration and high birth rates. Conquest of a Continent.
Hunter Mitchell
I mean here That you're right,but plenty of anglos in the area too
Dominic Martinez
>What are the costs and benefits? Costs and benefits for who exactly? Nazis or Jews?
Aaron Ortiz
For Germany.
Adam Johnson
Yes, simplistic statements that ignore reality like in the OP are very helpful. Very objective.