Quote:
Originally Posted by aohige
I'm not gonna defend myself.
I AM racist towards the human race. I think we are dicks. I mean, really, really douchy dicks.
I think we are stupid idiots who seem incapable of harmoniously working towards a common goal on a global scale.
That being said, I think if there's any redeeming quality to human beings, it's that we can adapt and change.
We don't have to be utter morons forever.
.... Or so believes Gene Roddenberry.
We just gotta figure out what the hell happened to these dumb apes that we somehow achieved enlightment and formed the Federation.  |
A combination of post-scarcity and (obvious) common enemies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by willx
His points were (if I recall properly) basically: 1) Moral Progress exists 2) Science and Reason can take us there and 3) There can be such a thing as a "Moral Expert" (example: willx isn't a physicist. Therefore my opinion regarding string theory isn't relevent. So why is "everyone's" opinion about morality relevant)
|
I think the problem with getting a moral expert is that we lack the tool to measure the quality of a moral system. We still can't really predict the evolution of society based on such unquantifiables all that well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi
Society is by no means a purely logical nor functional. It is based on humans which by themselves are not purely logical nor functional, nor is ethics and morality for that matter. Thus, moral of logic and science being "done correctly" is a crackpot idea that has no logical basis to it.
|
Individual humans don't have to be any more rational than geese for their behaviors to have patterns that can be studied scientifically.
Quote:
And how does experiments connect to ethics and morality?
In the end, everyone is engaged in sophism: The notion that only religion or "science" is the correct path of a ethical or moral society is in itself a fundamentally flawed idea which both sides are not willing to admit. Morality/ethics is a social construction which is based on what what society is, which cannot be purely religious or scientific. To argue that there is one correct path is simple BS.
|
While I must of course acknowledge the limits of science, what does religion bring to the table in terms of engineering morality? The wisdom of some long dead man's imaginary friend?
It's a useful lure for the believers. But it has little practical use in determining the morality of any issue.