Can you scientifically prove that if a society adheres to some rules (like moral values) it will advance faster than...

Some set of rules? That's awfully specific. It's not like morals are subjective or anything.

Try asking a real question instead of waving your hands around.

A society without rules is stuck on the safety rung of Maslow's hierarchy. People will have less time to come up with innovative and progressive ideas since they'd be devoting more thought to protecting themselves and their loved ones.

>scientifically prove
Thedre is the problem.

However since human society is very limited (add a few clever lines about survivor bias) you can take present day societies and divide them by strength of moral values and map advance to this. Sprinkle with examples from extinct societies.

Next prepare to be hunted down by crazed political correcticos.

Tangentially note that most societies have a concept of fate and that fate hunts down its prey more efficiently than the politically correct misfits of this world.

All functional groups have a set of rules that they abide by which can be thought of as their moral values. Even other species have rules about dominance, aggression, submissive displays, order of food consumption, sharing, etc. So you're very unlikely to find a human group without morals.

That said, the pertinent question is "which set of morals will help one group advance faster than another?" And for that we can get some pretty clear answers when comparing current and historical groups. Cultural materialism is worth delving into for more on this.

Mind you, these different outcomes are bound by context. Just because a particular set of morals worked well in the past, that is not a guarantee that they will work well in the future. What we call 'religious fundamentalism' is a set of morals that worked well in the past but are usually dysfunctional in today's world.

game theory does this.

Except that's false. Moral values =/= church attendance or thinking for yourself.

The very definition of "subjective" is that which is based on opinions, personal feelings, etc. Moral values are literally impossible to measure on a scale larger than the individual.

Also, why don't you focus on the argument rather than the guy's ability to punctuate.

...

>2016
>moral subjectivity

You can prove that, assuming the universe is uniform (vacuous, c.f. Hume), some things called rules will lead to some thing called progress faster than other things called rules will lead to some thing called progress within a certain confidence interval.

This is a really embarrassing post.
You should read literally any philosophy.

>you're an idiot
>I can't be bothered to explain why
>that way you can't refute my claims

2/10 if bait
retard/10 if serious

Maslow?
Social Science bunk?
You can't be serious.
Not only is the entire concept based on the false dilemma fallacy, it doesn't follow any logic at all.
It's an axiomatic infallible fact anyone can have a mixture of any of those things at any time.
Absolute fact.
The idea of "social/progressive gates" is dogmatic and lacks examples.
The only social rules life evolved under were "leave me or i defend".
That's it.
The people that try to defend Maslow often try to use it to promote political ideologies heavily reliant of self-serving fallacies and irrational biases [what b/tards called jew-logic].

No. Nature has it's own rules, and social rules should try to encourage what it best for the species to survive which is to respect diversity and learn true, not feigned, humility.

Political social science crap isn't science is just pseudo-science being used to promote classism and control based solely on egotism and self-serving segregational groupthink.

It's a mental disorder not a science.

>Moral values =/= church attendance or thinking for yourself.
Either are possible moral values.
Nowhere did I imply these are all possible moral values.
They're obviously just examples of two different, conflicting moral values.

>Moral values are literally impossible to measure on a scale larger than the individual.
>implying two (or two billion) people can't share moral values.

>why don't you focus on the argument rather than the guy's ability to punctuate.

>3 lines about annoying punctuation
>11 lines focus on the argument
>"why so focused on punctuation!??"
retard

Not user, but...
>Moral values =/= thinking for yourself.
Prove it.
And no false dilemmas, personal incredulity or arguments from ignorance, you hack.

jesus fucking christ you're a mess man, turn off your computer and go get some air

>jesus fucking christ you're a mess man, turn off your computer and go get some air
Still no argument beyond "I disagree with you"?
Are you claiming morality is objective?
I'd love to hear the basis for this nonsense.

>>Moral values =/= thinking for yourself.
>Prove it.
Try reading the post again.
I'm claiming that "thinking for yourself" is one possible moral value.
Another possible moral value is blind obedience to religion.
Clearly, there is no objective morality.

My first thought was "holy fuck these fatties look British" and I was right.

I'm not trying to debate you. I'm trying to help you.
You should read philosophy so that you don't sound like an immature brat when you discuss philosophical ideas.

>this clown doesn't recognize the difference between morals and ethics
>he also doesn't understand that neither are quantitative, and can't be measured
I'm still not convinced this isn't bait

By "advance", you mean efficiently adapt to the rules in play?

No.. the optimal set of rules depends on the initial conditions. Any studies would not be reproducible.

An empirical proof is far less rigurous than a purely logical one.

Scientifically? No.
You can argue that there's a sweet spot with rules by observing societies and noting that both restrictive societies with a lot of rules and bureaucracy and anarchies don't do well, but it's not like you can replay the history of USA with fascism, communism, anarchism etc etc.

>can you prove X
>doesn't give axioms and deduction rules

Ok