Morality has nothing to do with Science.

Morality actually has nothing to do with religion, either.

There is a connection between morality and religion in that they are both features of a culture. You don't need religion to have morality... but you do need a culture to have morality.

Can you provide a specific example. I'm not sure what you are referring to.

strange days indeed

I started thinking thinking on this idea on the "Monogamy Unnatural in the Natural World" thread. I am currently frustrated with the "Yet another case of religious murder" thread. The first was an interesting discussion alleging an evolutionary rationale for faithfulness (which seems more wishful thinking than reality). The second involves allegations of the "evilness" of religious superstitions.

Maybe I shouldn't have made that last quip you quote. I don't want to continue either of these arguments.

My purpose for this thread is to see if anyone can defend the idea that their views of morality has any objective scientific foundation.

If everyone accepts the fact that with religion or without religion there is no foundation of morality that is not subject to specific cultural beliefs then the premise of the thread is wrong and there won't be much to discuss.

In that case the religious and the non-religious are pretty much in the same boat when it comes to moral values.

If you believe in karma, as I do, then for every action we perform there is an equal yet opposite reaction. The causes we make against another will come back to us. Therefore, 'morality' dictates that we strive to create good karma by embracing and creating as much happiness as we can for others. I think there's some science mixed in there.

views about anything (morality) are scientifically based is you believe then to be

I don't accept this claim as a fact. To show you why not, let me give you an example of what I consider a culture-independent foundation of morality. Whatever our cultural beliefs are, we all have an interest in our own survival. This gives us reason to negotiate rules with each other by which we can ensure that we don't end up killing each other. To make these rules, follow them, and enforce them when people break them, we don't need to share any culture-specific beliefs. All we need is the insight that we need some way of living together -- an insight that is much more nearly a fact than a culture-specific belief.

Nick... this is not exactly the level of discussion I was hoping for, but I will respond.

In science, the "action reaction" language is used to express Newton's third law of motion. It doesn't contain the lesson you want it to.

Newton's third law applies to a bug hitting a windshield. This means that the bug puts the same force on the car that the car puts on the bug. However balanced this seems, the results are far from equal.

The bug comes to an untimely end while the car is slowed an imperceptible amount.

The driver who started the process might never even know about the individual life she snuffed out. Although she has one life to give for the hundreds she might take an evening of driving, the consequence is rarely more than the need to push the windshield washer button.

I don't think the scientific principle of Newton's third law has anything to do with the religious concept of Karma.

Morality is culturally independent the same way that language is culturally independent. People need a way to express actions... and so every culture has the concept of a verb.

Languages are still quite different; every culture has different verbs expressed in different ways. Although each culture has developed a language, any idea of a universal language is artificial and arbitrary.

The moral rules about which of our acquaintances we are allowed to kill vary greatly from culture to culture and from era to era.

The analogy between moral rules and grammatical rules is one we can agree on. I guess where we disagree is the importance of cultural differences, compared to the similarities. I think cultural differences in moral rules are generally overplayed -- probably because they're more interesting to talk about than the similarities are.

This all sounds like hoohah to me.

You work up a test with plenty of controls. and record that. The test is probably based on hypotheses.

I've been around when the test didn't work out, a very desired result type of test, and on repeat and repeat and repeat, gave a clue in another direction.
That turned out to be extremely interesting.

Why is anyone trying to put morality into laboratories?

Re morality and labs, in my obviously windowed experience, I didn't see any cheating. I saw a reaction to a strange result, which turned out to be interesting.

But.. I get it that labs can cheat.

So, I check earlier replies on the thread.

Elbow scratching.

10 commandments and the like?

Oh, wait. I saw cheating once, a new hire trying to work out. The person was fired, quickly.

Oh, nuts, I suppose I'll have to read this thread.

There's an old debate on this especially in human rights literature. The main premise is that they are universal, inalienable, indivisible.... the opposition to this theory claims that everything is culture specific. However, if you accept this, than nothing matters, because many heinous things can be explained away and excused by culture.
I am somewhere between the extreme universalism and extreme cultural relativism. Culture matters, but when it comes to human life and basic dignity (whether it's mistreatment of women, or child labor...etc), i believe human rights trump culture. question is, of course, where exactly do you draw the line. I don't know.

(edit re: religious murder thread: that still doesn't make it a murder :-). laws are laws, emotions are emotions... they should be kept separate for good reasons)

Well, I won't read on, nothing to do with work in the lab, from a quick read.