Science and Morality

[crypto]

Can (and should) science determine morals, or should morals be the domain of philosophy—or theology—divorced from science?

And the plug: The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris.

[Jorgen]

I think people in a culture should choose for themselves as to how far they are willing to go for a scientific breaktrough.

right now i won't say more lol

[Pillz]

Oh god. I hate all discussions about morals. God forbid we give a standard for designing them.

[LeninCat]

Morals are just simply implied as the fact of what is and what isn't, what to do and what not to do, but times are changing. So much is being factually proven, yet many of us stay blissful to what that may be, not accepting of what could change what you have, another reason why things and people will never change.

[Dante]

Oh god. I hate all discussions about morals. God forbid we give a standard for designing them.

Lol pilz you siged me. Really though the sense went away with the topic. What happened to it anyway?
(on topic) Philosophers should be the ones to discern morals they truly debate day by day. SCIENTIST though debate also but for Scientific stuff mainly. So then really philosophers are like scientist so maybe they should work together to discern what morals are.

[Pillz]

Well, morals are simply an idea. A heavily culturally influenced one. Example, men in other countries are allowed to marry as many girls as they like, from like, age 10 and up. Now, we here in america, think that is immoral, to be sleeping with so many people at the same time, much less marry so many, it defies our ideas of marriage.

In america, laws pretty much define morals, they do in many other countries too, I believe. But the morals in our laws, or whatever, is a result of religious rules, such as the ten commandments.

I myself, don't have many morals. I don't know why, I don't care. Maybe that's why.

It's opinion also. I don't believe for a second that anyone has the same exact set of morals, or idea of what morals should be.  Do you get what I'm saying?

[AlphaWeeaboo]

Whatever makes me happy, ya know?

[Cadaver]

Morals are vague, science, by default, cannot be.

Morals do need to exist in the realm of science, otherwise, Frankenstein might be real.  Or other worse concepts of experiments could be made...

For example: Look up Unit 731, a military scientific research group, run by Japan during the Second Sino-Japanese War, and continued into WWII...

Be careful in your search, as it can be graphic.  Empty stomach recommended, if you delve deep...

[Jorgen]

frankenstein would be the least of my worries cadaver, what is alive can be killed easy as that.
what is capable of thought is capable of death

I don't fear what the world has to throw at me, you will die no matter what you try.
but limiting my research in cellular diagnostics (when i get done with my degree) and then curing it trough genetic modifications i think it is stupid. If some1 wishes to cure their disease trough getting virologically ( or in another manner) i think they should be allowed too, and if i wish to research it i should be allowed to

[Kwaurtz]

I think its morally wrong to disable the human immune system by administering vaccines at early ages. We are going to cause a de-evolution if we continue it, and we are due for an epidemic as it is.

[Cadaver]

I am just waiting for something like "I am Legend" to happen. 

Cures you to death...

[Jorgen]

lol it won't happen if your sole reason is to fix a small genetic sequence, but if you try to make some1 say smarter stronger or something trough genetics i is obvious that things could go wrong lol

[crypto]

Pillz, do you think there is anything wrong with murder?

[Pillz]

Pillz, do you think there is anything wrong with murder?

Yeah, I don't like the way the word is spelled.

[Raunky]

Morality is the science of man.
What now?