Actually nobody has stated why science can't decide right from wrong, which would be really amusing, since science dictates thousands of moral choices everyday. I hate to break it to you, but we use scientific facts to decide almost all important morality questions because the other appeals to knowledge are so arbitrary. This is exactly what Hume was addressing in snarf's post. There are no absolute morals, only man-made ones. Absolute morals would allow reductio ad absurdum events which Hume clearly states is crazy. Hume also feels the same way about other subjective decisions that people try and tie to platonic absolutes, hence Modeeb's cite of Hume's decree of "consign it to the flames" for art.


The only way to evalute a person's position on subjective issues is to look at where they get their information. If they are using weaker means to get information their position is weaker. Which makes it really simple for reflexive evaluation. Why do you believe what you do and where did you get your information that made you think that way? Using this can identify many of the fallacies that hold you back and allow you the breathing room to move forward and learn something better.

 

-----signature-----

I think you're going for the value of meditation and contemplation, which would fall under appeals to intuition. The value of any knowledge created here would directly relate to the thing being contemplated and how you came to know it. The tricky thing about intuition is we so want it to be right, because it's us making the call, but it's a sneaky thing. I've launched many thought experiments in silence and some worked out great in practice and others crashed after a cursory reading of the literature. There's nothing wrong with enjoying those still quiet moments in our lives, just check yourself for mistakes.

 

-----signature-----

You are failing to identify what knowledge you speak of with regard to the moral questions being asked. I am not aware of anyone denying that knowledge is very important to moral questions.


For example choosing between choice A and choice B. IF you have no knowledge of the outcomes then how can you just if it is good or bad?


You can also assume perfect knowledge with regard to the outcome but there is no way to use science to establish the morality in question. If choice A results in more X than choice B (everything else remaining the same) then it is a matter of labeling X as good or bad.


You have gone on for pages without honestly addressing my first question. You continue to beat up strawmen and try and change the subject. It is hard to know if you are simply confused or just so full of yourself you can't even realize you are avoiding the issue at hand.

 

-----signature-----

For morality to make sense you need some fundamental truths to compare acts with, but you gain those fundamental truths in the same way Enkidu pointed out in the first post. I think both of you know you are actually saying different things, and you are both incredibly annoying. Grats.

 

-----signature-----

I'm pretty sure I keep talking about the same topic. What onin is doing is trying to wriggle around the edges of the central point to keep from having to review his own personal beliefs. This isn't uncommon, it's very difficult for some people to get beyond the concrete stage of thinking. These folks live and die by the things they were told to believe when young and rarely grow out of them. This is why religions push very hard to get children and young people into the fold, because mathematically you'll get a good return on your investment of time.

 

-----signature-----

Once again Enk is not answering or even coming remotely close to addressing the issue while demonstrating ignorance and bigotry.


I know I am shocked.


How do you use science to establish a moral truth or come to a moral answer. Pick any one you want. I am not talking about using science to inform a moral question. If you don't understand the question refer to my previous posts.


Answer the question or not Enk but there is no doubt you have failed to answer my question which is pretty damn basic to any discussion on morality.

 

-----signature-----

I answered this like five pages ago, you just chose to not allow it.


I'll do you one better, you pick the moral question and I'll walk you through it.

 

-----signature-----

The contemplative phenomena will resist translation into words. I'm talking about entering into an empty state without thinking. This is not intuition and to categorize it as such would be an error. If it is intuitive, let it go. This is what I mean by unknowing. I'm experiencing raw Existence at a listening level. There is some brain experimentation on this, but, it is not conclusive.

 

-----signature-----

How is that better? You have not even come close to addressing any moral question of right and wrong.

 

-----signature-----

You still end up at intuition. Even people in sensory deprivation and while sleeping have wild random firings of their brain synapses, so you cannot remove your thoughts from the physical apparatus. Like your earlier post on a decomposing brain, when it's gone, so are your thoughts.


You didn't want to live forever, did you?

 

-----signature-----