Actually, it does matter, but I'll go with the easier one.


Good is the outcome that we want to occur, bad is the one that we don't. Leaving this up to a single individual to determine would be foolish, but with the older appeals to knowledge, that's what you are stuck with. Using science, that randomness of individual choices for good and bad outcomes would be tested by numerous entities who would argue for the correctness of their position. Eventually, though the weight of evidence the best description of a good or bad outcome would be agreed upon. At least until some new data came along and required a full review of all data to see if somehting needed to be changed.


good v. evil is more complicated because actors motives are involved creating new branches that need to be resolved.

 

-----signature-----

If you posit that homo sapiens have a survival instinct and a need to procreate, then, game theory can show that what is considered morality is merely a species' optimal strategy for surviving. Humans became a social animal because it made survival of the species orders of magnitude more likely and most moral laws are laws that reinforce community.

 

-----signature-----

And how do we decide that?


All you are doing in your hypothetical is verifying what most people think is good or bad. Which each individual person arrives at through the intuition you degraded me for relying upon. You are just issuing an appeal to the authority of the many (although presumably not the real many, just the ones you approve of) rather than the authority of one particular person.


So basically you are still not really thinking things through and repeating the same logical fallacies.

Science clearly helps us demonstrate why I am right and you are wrong. Philosophy helps us understand why.


You are a confused lil man. That is a fact.

 

-----signature-----

Humanity's sense of morality comes from a combo of nature and nurture. Every attempt you made to act like you are basing your beliefs on science has been a rather poor example of appealing to your own moral sense. You have literally just run tests to see what your moral sense feels.


It has been a rather pathetic display of close minded and illogical thinking. You fail at science and philosophy. HARD.


Ironic huh.

 

-----signature-----

Read the whole thing, not just the first sentence, yuki. I made no assumptions as to how and individual arrives at what they consider good or bad in the beginning and it doesn't even matter. It's the process that that will determine what our best approximation of good or bad outcomes are, not what the individuals originally thought. It reveals the spurrious and amplifies the outcome that best matches the multitude of observations. This process has shown thousands of times that no one person had it right in the beginning, but through testing and verification everyone can modify their positions to arrive at the best outcome currently available.

 

-----signature-----

 

-----signature-----

It doesn't matter onin, the scientific process weeds out the stupid and reinforces the things that fit the data. It's not more complicated than that.


Well except in crazy onin land where we're born knowing morality!

 

-----signature-----

It has been pages of your nonsense and you finally admit "how an individual arrives at what they consider good or bad in the beginning and it doesn't even matter"


Now you think it is not connected to their nature?


You are a horrible scientist and suck at basic logic. You have been wrong for pages in a topic you brought up.

 

-----signature-----

Philosophy, love, art... These are all traits of our spiritual endowments. None of these things can be measured by science, which is why you cannot look to science exclusively for the meaning of life. Science alone is a two dimensional toolset in a three dimensional environment.

 

-----signature-----