How morality is false and science is true

It has nothing to do with "particles." It has to do with psychology; the subjective perception of the individual based on genes and the environment.

What, exactly, are "the atoms and particles of our pleasure"?

That is total nonsense. As two other posters have already suggested, "our moral values [...]of good and bad cannot define anything else" except our cultural orientation and personal psychological makeup.

"Atoms and particles of our pleasures"? What are you talking about? Since when do emotions have mass?

yes, and no..."morality" has nothing to do with genetics, and only a little to do with individual psychology...your statement is almost as nonsensical as the OPs.

You don't have any understanding of psychology, culture, or societies.

Of course, because...i am a robot. In fact, i am a roomba; when i bump into things i change direction!

i attacked the genetic aspect of your argument because it seems genuinely irrelevant. The infinitesimal genetic differentiation amongst homo sapiens isn't usually a decisive factor in our "subjective perception". i suspect that you only included it to seem sufficiently "science-y" to the guy who implied that morality was a physics problem.

Re: the psychology issue, i would like to point out that i specified "individual" psychology (once again, because of the "subjective" issue)...i do think that group psychology has a bearing on the issue. "Morality" isn't the product of one, or even many individual minds in unison -- it's the product of multiple individuals negotiating how best to treat one another.

The idea that one person could have moral principals in a vacuum, generated by their personal psychology, is absurd... Morality isn't a subjective concept or value, it's a public act.

Morality is about group efficiency for complex tasking. Its a social app for energy efficiency like everything else in reality what else ?
But you are wrong if you think is purely relative, there is an ORDER to it !
There is no special status to morality when you throw in "negotiations" and "willing"...what is negotiated are local relative rules...but they all abide and submit to group efficiency which is the GOAL !
On this one I suspect you stubbornly want to stick to your "freedom fighter" good old ways...But I know you know what I am talking about...stop being stubborn for once...you can reason miles better then this convenient fairy tale you insist buying.

@Mozartlink
My dear mr Mozartlink you do seem to be rather confused. Particles are neither good nor bad, they have no concept of such things neither do they have a concept of pleasure or anything for that matter. Morals are a construction of humanity, a necessary illusion to keep society in check. Our cognitive abilities are brilliant but also incredibly annoying; we are programmed from an evolutionary perspective to help and protect our own, as we are a social species. Our cognitive ability forces us to think deeply on that ideal and in order to satisfy our minds, and separate us from going insane as we look too deeply into the ideas of ' fighting for survival' and 'strongest species thriving' , which in today's society is no longer relevant- we have morals. They are a code we use to justify our actions. Nothing more. Just a way for us to comprehend what we do in terms of fair society. We dont want our stuff stolen, so morality dictates stealing is wrong and therefore if we dont steal then through shear social pressure neither should our peers. A wealthy man will have one set of morals, a poor man will have a second different set and a thief will have a third and so on and so forth. Though each is different everyone is sure theirs is correct, justified and even look down on those who do not follow it. That is part of the arrogance of man but it orders society and keeps us sane

In a sense, Fil, you've got me all wrong. i agree with you about most of your statements. With the proviso, of course, that maintaining the current order is the goal of common and/or dogmatic morality.

However, moral values do change, moralities shift or "evolve", and these shifts are spurred by the constant "willing" and "negotiation" between the individuals that make it all possible. And these shifts represent short-term, but necessary, systemic inefficiencies, despite of/ but because of morality.

Perhaps group inefficiency is the best method to the goal of morality...