- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhoa, I couldn't disagree more.
Whether people use scientific data is irrelevant. The key questions "what constitutes a 'human being'" or "who has the right of person-hood" are not scientific questions and not questions that require 'study'.
Science is often involved in discussion because science tells us about the world. So if you want to discuss real world issues, it helps to know wh ...[text shortened]... eatens your religion, so you see it as 'the bad guy'😉, but it simply isn't justified.
The questions "what constitutes a 'human being'" and "who has the right of person-hood"
can't be answered or addressed in any meaningful way without science.
Now whether they are important or relevant questions to ask is a separate discussion but
if you do want to ask them then the ONLY way of addressing them is to use the scientific method.
Originally posted by googlefudgePlease explain how science could answer what are clearly purely philosophical or moral questions? The scientific method couldn't even begin to answer such questions. Its as ridiculous as trying to use the scientific method to determine whether a woman is beautiful.
Whoa, I couldn't disagree more.
The questions "what constitutes a 'human being'" and "who has the right of person-hood"
can't be answered or addressed in any meaningful way without science.
Now whether they are important or relevant questions to ask is a separate discussion but
if you do want to ask them then the ONLY way of addressing them is to use the scientific method.
Now if you decide that a 'human being' is a concious member of the homo sapiens species, the science may help you determine whether a given creature fits this definition. But science will not, in any way, aid you with coming up with the definition.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by twhiteheadthere are lots of scientific theory behind why women are beautiful. i think the main theory relates to the golden ratio and symmetry,
Please explain how science could answer what are clearly purely philosophical or moral questions? The scientific method couldn't even begin to answer such questions. Its as ridiculous as trying to use the scientific method to determine whether a woman is beautiful.
Now if you decide that a 'human being' is a concious member of the homo sapiens species, t ...[text shortened]... his definition. But science will not, in any way, aid you with coming up with the definition.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadOk well you really need to watch the video I linked on the last page on what science can say
Please explain how science could answer what are clearly purely philosophical or moral questions? The scientific method couldn't even begin to answer such questions. Its as ridiculous as trying to use the scientific method to determine whether a woman is beautiful.
Now if you decide that a 'human being' is a concious member of the homo sapiens species, t ...[text shortened]... his definition. But science will not, in any way, aid you with coming up with the definition.
about morality.
&feature=channel_video_title
The questions are clearly NOT purely philosophical or moral questions, and even if they were,
science is still the best tool for answering them.
Morality is about creating rules and guidelines for governing interactions between people and
groups of people that best promote the well-being of those people.
Now if you want to analyse people to find out how they work and what their well-being looks like
then you must use science and the scientific method.
If you want to analyse whether the rules and guidelines you have devised are generating outcomes
that maximise well-being then again you have to use science and the scientific method to do so.
Thus Morality is totally a valid scientific domain.
As for these questions about what a human being is and who has the right of person-hood...
however you define your terms you MUST use the scientific method and findings to map your philosophical
concepts onto reality.
However you define person, or human being, you must use scientific methods to determine what physical
objects in our reality match that definition.
And also our scientific findings can feed back into refining and altering definitions to better and more usefully
reflect the reality we live in.
You can create a definition of anything you like to be anything you like, but to be in any way useful for a given
purpose or discussion then that definition must match relevant attributes of reality.
The only valid and viable way we know of investigating reality is the scientific method.
Thus science can and indeed must inform us when we make definitions if those definitions are to make any meaningful
sense.
Thus it is not in the least bit ridiculous to say that these questions not only can but MUST be addressed
scientifically.
It is in fact ridiculous to claim that they can be addressed by anything else.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by stellspalfieIt's (as ever) way more complicated than that.
there are lots of scientific theory behind why women are beautiful. i think the main theory relates to the golden ratio and symmetry,
But investigating sexual partner selection and concepts of beauty and attractiveness are certainly areas of scientific investigation.
In fact I find it hard to think of anything existent that is beyond scientific investigation.
Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok well you really need to watch the video I linked on the last page on what science can say
about morality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk&feature=channel_video_title
The questions are clearly NOT purely philosophical or moral questions, and even if they were,
science is still the best tool for answering them.
Morality ...[text shortened]... scientifically.
It is in fact ridiculous to claim that they can be addressed by anything else.
However you define person, or human being, you must use scientific methods to determine what physical
objects in our reality match that definition.
And also our scientific findings can feed back into refining and altering definitions to better and more usefully
reflect the reality we live in.
I believe both of the above statements are true, but for me, the fragment "However you define person, or human being, ..." only emphasizes the issue.
The desire to establish a definition of person or human being comes from somewhere. It might not be a desire that is entirely within the scope of those desires that drive scientific inquiry. The nature of the desire may influence the resulting definition. Examples are easily found, generally related to the rights and privileges that are afforded by a society to those objects that meet the definitions. So the resulting definition might not meet the usual criteria of objectivity that science calls for.
A scientist writing a paper on some tribe, would be considered unobjective if he said that the society's definition of person or human was "wrong" when that society used that definition to sanction slavery or genocide. He sees it as wrong not scientifically, but culturally. His own society's definition may differ, that is all. So it seems to me that definitions serve purposes that are not entirely served by science, and people have motivations that lie outside those driving science, when they formulate their definitions.
I guess that is my main point. People have motivations and values that lie outside those undergirding science, when they formulate their definitions. And their motivations greatly influence their definitions.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]I'm not clear on your views than.
I don't think our understanding of morals changes a whole lot. What does change quite dramatically, is who we see as being members of our 'group', and what weighting we give to a group.
[b]2. You think morals are required to live in society, but to do that more than just morals are required.
3. We don't have to follow these morals.
4. There are cheat acting 'morally correct' or as acting 'lovingly'. There is a significant difference.
You have morals we don't have to follow and yet those that don't follow them
are cheaters, so why is that they don't have to follow them? The morals if they
are not rules to be followed, why bother?
I have more questions but this is a good start.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by JS357I may not have been clear in my meaning.However you define person, or human being, you must use scientific methods to determine what physical
objects in our reality match that definition.
And also our scientific findings can feed back into refining and altering definitions to better and more usefully
reflect the reality we live in.
I believe both of the above statements are tr ...[text shortened]... ey formulate their definitions. And their motivations greatly influence their definitions.
I am not talking about what tools people do use but which tools people should use when discussing these issues.
I was saying that these issues are not beyond the purview of science and in fact can only be reasonably addressed
by utilising the scientific tool-kit.
I am well aware that many people not only don't use scientific methodology for such issues but don't understand how
they could even if they wanted to.
However my argument is that it is the only means of objectively and rationally addressing these issues.
"A scientist writing a paper on some tribe, would be considered unobjective if he said that the society's definition of
person or human was "wrong" when that society used that definition to sanction slavery or genocide.
He sees it as wrong not scientifically, but culturally. His own society's definition may differ, that is all.
So it seems to me that definitions serve purposes that are not entirely served by science, and people have motivations
that lie outside those driving science, when they formulate their definitions."
If the tribe had a word that corresponded to something like our definition of human being but they arbitrarily counted themselves
as human but not their opponents who they were trying to enslave then its perfectly possible and objective to say that they
are wrong to claim that their opposition are not humans from an objective scientific viewpoint.
However...
What we are talking about here is not an external observer to a society documenting on their language and word meanings.
We are talking about people within a society have a discussion about a contentious issue and how they [should] go about
defining their terms for the purposes and in the context of the contentious issue.
I could for example define the word "person" in such a way that it including any individual living animal, or even life from of
any kind.
However this definition would be utterly useless for dealing and discussing the issues surrounding abortion.
It would be useless for legal purposes, for determining rights, because the same rights you give a person would now suddenly
be applicable to ants... Do we now have a UN council meeting to discuss genocide every time one ant colony tries to wipe out
another?
Do we hold murder trials every time you step on an ant, or swat a fly?
It's obviously absurd.
So the context for proposing definitions in discussions about abortion is that they actually have to have some meaning and
bearing on the issue of abortion.
If something that is defined as a 'person' gets certain rights and legal privileges then the definition of person needs to reflect
the intended use and outcomes.
You need to determine what physical objects in the universe fall under this definition.
And you need science to do that.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat about love?
It's (as ever) way more complicated than that.
But investigating sexual partner selection and concepts of beauty and attractiveness are certainly areas of scientific investigation.
In fact I find it hard to think of anything existent that is beyond scientific investigation.
Sure you can write surveys until your ears bleed, but "science" is never going to understand why humans need love, or how it works.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudge"If something that is defined as a 'person' gets certain rights and legal privileges then the definition of person needs to reflect
I may not have been clear in my meaning.
I am not talking about what tools people do use but which tools people should use when discussing these issues.
I was saying that these issues are not beyond the purview of science and in fact can only be reasonably addressed
by utilising the scientific tool-kit.
I am well aware that many people not only jects in the universe fall under this definition.
And you need science to do that.
the intended use and outcomes.
You need to determine what physical objects in the universe fall under this definition.
And you need science to do that."
This does require that physically observable aspects of objects be relied on to determine who is a person, legally speaking. 'Legally speaking' would refer to intended use and outcomes. Right?
Such aspects could be properties or behaviors.
Take two examples: skin color and ability to converse in English. These need some degree of "science" to determine, but many people think these should have no bearing on intended use and outcomes of the determination that an object is a person. Others would say and have said that they are valid indicators.
So the matter is not settled simply by reliance on scientific tools.
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou see, this is the perfect example because this shows that the might of the state has made most believe that abortion is OK. And it would stand to reason that if the state were the supreme authority this would stand, however, I don't believe that the state is the supreme authority. Just like slavery was conquered so shall abortion be. It's only a matter of when.
How did this thread devolve to an abortion debate?
At any rate, if whodey is serious about his contention that might makes right, then he ought to be willing to admit that since abortion is legal in the U.S. (a law enforced by the "might" of the State) abortion is also morally right.
Originally posted by twhiteheadScience threatens my religion? How does science threaten my religion, especially when you have basically stated that science is impotent in deciding matters of morality. This would mean that thos who rely soley on science are misguided to say the least.
And yes, I know that you would like to lay the blame on science (because science threatens your religion, so you see it as 'the bad guy'😉, but it simply isn't justified.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeySo it sounds like your stance is NOT that might makes right, because you say in effect that might can cause people to sincerely support as right, something that is wrong.
You see, this is the perfect example because this shows that the might of the state has made most believe that abortion is OK. And it would stand to reason that if the state were the supreme authority this would stand, however, I don't believe that the state is the supreme authority. Just like slavery was conquered so shall abortion be. It's only a matter of when.
This leaves hanging the question of what, if anything, makes something right or wrong.