Feeling bad is bad. Feeling good is, well... good. It's kind of the definition.


Somewhat related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ

 

-----signature-----

So feelings determine morality...

 

-----signature-----

You guys are getting all wrapped around the axle because you aren't thinking about how you come to know anything. Whether it's a subjective or an absolute decision, we still make them on what we think we know.


Pick any topic that you think you know something about, be it moral belief, who is going to win the superbowl, what you favorite food is, it doesn't matter. Now think of how you came to have that belief. If you got there by experimenting and consulting with experts in the area, your chance of getting closer to the truth is much higher than if you just guessed.


BTW, all science findings are conditional, in other words, subjective.

 

-----signature-----

You have to get very confused to get to the point you are trying to equate the nature of questions of what is and questions of what should be.


Enk you have failed to answer my question which is in no way surprising.

 

-----signature-----

See my concrete example above and restated differently below, Cherrim.

Metaphysical position, Transcendental Idealism, (i.e.Reality is mind independent), thus the rock exists independent of my mind and the number three exists independent of my mind. A Conceptual metaphysical position is completely mind dependent. The ontology is different. Therfore, your ontology is dependent on your metaphysical position. If i am a Realist I am committed down a certain road. If I am an anti-Realist I am committed down another road. Now do you understand? I cant be any simpler or clearer.

 

-----signature-----

Science doesn't say that women voting is wrong, but science can say that women are just as intelligent as men. This does not give a wrong or right answer to a general belief of in society x women should not be allowed to vote. Your example of slavery is also laughable. You attack some of the justifications of moral decisions on a scientific basis, which can only prove that that particular justification is not based on sound evidence. It does not change the fact that slaves can be of the same race/skin color and have for thousands of years. Remember black Africans kept black Africans as slaves also. Science can not prove that a moral issues is wrong or right. In society x, all people are of the same color, they have slavery. Those that are captured in war in this society are slaves, on the sole basis of might makes right, not because of perceptions of inferiority or anything else. This society believes slavery is morally acceptable. Now, pray tell, how can science say this society is morally wrong or right?

Yes.

 

-----signature-----

Since snarf and onin seem to be the only still not getting this, I'll use a specific example to illustrate the problem.


Snarf and Onin, what is your position on the theory of evolution? Why do hold that position? How did you come to know that your position was right?

 

-----signature-----

Just answer the question.

 

-----signature-----

I have answered it. Unlike most of the people in the thread, you just don't seem to understand the answer. So I'm going to let you answer it for yourself. All you have to do is state your position on evolution and explain how you came to that position.

 

-----signature-----