Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If you consider ethics as a parallel to morality then it's already an integral part of science anyway. No serious scientific study can be carried out without massive, legally based ethical considerations. It can often be very stifling to scientific advance for example in relation to genetic modification and stem cell research.

Originally posted by jaden101
If you consider ethics as a parallel to morality then it's already an integral part of science anyway. No serious scientific study can be carried out without massive, legally based ethical considerations. It can often be very stifling to scientific advance for example in relation to genetic modification and stem cell research.

Would that not be the morality of science rather than the science of morality?

i was just about to say that. I still don't think that morality or ethics needs to be studied just so long as it's considered within scientific study.

I certainly don't agree that morality is in the domain of religion, predominantly

I don't entirely disagree with the thread starter. A "science" is likely more difficult than a "logic" of morality.

Basically, we have actions and beliefs that any rational person would consider wrong, we can empirically show harm, etc (there are lots of threads in the philosophy forum where I've elaborated this better).

It isn't a science, because you aren't building hypothesis or anything like that, however, in some situations we can build models of how it is moral to treat other people.

Granted, it is easier to identify things that are absolutely wrong than are right.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Unlike other living things on the planet we take much more from the earth than we need.

this is not true. Many species have gone extinct because they consume more than available. Large mammals are notorious for this, such as the giant guinea pigs which lived in south America or the modern elephant, which are destroying huge swaths of African habitat.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
In the end, it will be our, and probably the earth's, undoing.

human activity is really unlikely to "undo" the earth. Potentially make it uninhabitable to humans or other life, but the earth will probably still be there

Originally posted by inimalist
this is not true. Many species have gone extinct because they consume more than available. Large mammals are notorious for this, such as the giant guinea pigs which lived in south America or the modern elephant, which are destroying huge swaths of African habitat.



human activity is really unlikely to "undo" the earth. Potentially make it uninhabitable to humans or other life, but the earth will probably still be there

Elephants did fine and thrived for an extremely long time as did other African fauna until basically the last hundred years when HUMANS began destroying habitat on a much larger scale. What elephants "destroyed" always came back.

As for humans rendering the earth "uninhabital for ourselves and other life"...that basically is the undoing of the earth.

I find it hard to believe that any thing less than Alderan level detestation would make the planet completely uninhabitable. We've found creatures that can survive in conditions we can barely recreate in laboratory settings and there are probably of things (bacteria etc) that would thrive and evolve no matter what we do to the planet.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I find it hard to believe that any thing less than Alderan level detestation would make the planet completely uninhabitable. We've found creatures that can survive in conditions we can barely recreate in laboratory settings and there are probably of things (bacteria etc) that would thrive and evolve no matter what we do to the planet.

I think the uninhabitable thing is speaking more to humans (being able to continue leaving on Earth) if they continue to use resources at the same rate, give birth at the same rate, etc.

Why is grooming, as displayed by monkeys, an indication of moral emotions?

Emotions are instincts; they are something that is part of our genes. They are part of our genetic makeup because they were necessary for the survival of the social species. Some species are loners but some are naturally social. The social species needed emotions that facilitated social unity. Mutual grooming is one means for bonding between individuals and the group.

Would morals count as knowledge? Do emotions count as knowledge? Directly I must say that the emotion of fear is not knowledge. The emotion leads to a feeling and the consciousness of the feeling becomes knowledge. Morality is about relationships, i.e. certain instincts make a social group possible.

Without social cohesion social groups cannot survive. Reasoning about facts is a human means for survival and thriving. The more we know and understand about relationships the better will be our lives. In fact, because we have developed such powerful technology and thus have placed in the hands of people such power that if we do not do a better job about relationships our species cannot long survive.