Does science leave morality alone?

Question

It just seems science is absent in moral debate here on YAs and only the religious speak.

Answer 1

Actually, it seems that morals are a shifting zeitgeist rather than defined by any religion.

One example. Do women have the same rights as men?
You would have to stretch the old or new testament or the koran pretty far to get to a position where women have the right to vote.

But they do.

Answer 2

There are two areas that could consider morality in science, genetics and Ethics. Ethics is actually philosophy and while a discipline it is not really science. I use genetics broadly as much of morality is due to our being a social organism, and there is indication that specific morals, or the basis for them, may actually be genetic.

These are considered occasionally here, but many participants have a hard time understanding that their moral system is not the only more that exists.

Answer 3

Science can't answer moral questions with absolutes. We can borrow tools in science like logic, but these will always be applied in a fuzzy manner concerning morals. Science doesn't deal well with values that can't be absolute. You can argue that murder is immoral, but you could equally argue that if you murder someone, they deserved it (honor killing, widely practiced in the Middle East). Our moral values are arbitrarily selected and have no real basis rather than we 'think' they are correct. Moral values change too as time changes.

Answer 4

Of course science is absent here, this is R&S, science has nothing whatsoever to do with morals. What would make you think it does?

Answer 5

those are your assumptions of what morality might effect from evolution, even although, morality that resulted from evolution is what we see right this moment, yet has been changed by employing us mucking with it. as an occasion, you're incredibly suitable approximately monogamy, we by employing nature at the instant are not monogamous and that's lots greater possibly that the small band or team might improve each and every of the youngsters. What we evaluate "classic" marriage isn't classic for the period of all cultures and has presented problems that don't exist in others. Homosexuality is asserted in maximum if no longer all social species and serves to bond the social team. Evolution offsets the loss by employing making siblings of gay persons to be greater fertile. extremely some species abort their youthful reckoning on the circumstances (in addition they're going to eat or kill them, or from time to time whilst they hatch their on their own). faith isn't needed to be certain morals or rules of social interaction. Philosophy infrequently comes up with sensible products, even although that's extremely useful to learn out Ethics or the learn of ethical structures. technological expertise won't have the skill to define morals, even even though it extremely can let us know why we've morals.

Answer 6

Science is descriptive. Morality lies outside the scope of science.

Answer 7

Science=facts. People believe science=Still people who have feelings and thoughts.

Answer 8

I bring up morality... the problem is science has it covered, and theists have nothing to say about it.

I ask questions about relative morality... which is the scientific understanding of morals. They evolved. Theists have never commented on this.

Answer 9

science doesnt have much to do with morality. apples and oranges. morality is directly related to the ability to empathize. if you can see what you have done has hurt somebody, than you have done wrong. by the way i,m NOT religious.

Answer 10

No, science is not silent on morality. Abstinence is the best way of keeping disease-free, and that's mathematical. Less activity, less risk. That's mathematical. No one can dispute that.