Can the government compel you to provide someone a service against your will?

[Lemur]

We cannot even get a truly accurate gauge of the prevalence of homosexuality in our own society.

Fair enough, it is a very difficult topic to get accurate statistics on.

Yes, indeed, if only someone would find some statistics backed up by a decent methodology. Too bad it will never happen in our lifetimes.

[Taps microphone: "Is this thing on?"]

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, indeed, if only someone would find some statistics backed up by a decent methodology. Too bad it will never happen in our lifetimes.

[Taps microphone: "Is this thing on?"]

Now do that for ancient Sparta and we'll have something to go on.

[Lemur]

Sorry gents, I only found reliable statistics for half of your fact-holes. I should be ashamed of myself.

Bad lemur! Naughty lemur!

[Catiline]

It's the equivalent of refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ng-challenges/

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's the rub, though, the strange sort of special pleading often invoked in defense of morality: if there is no value, then there is still value because , and if there's value my morals are spared.

But if there's no value, there's no need to return (or move) to any which conceivable state: that's the whole point.



It has nothing to do with science, not ultimately.



Interestingly enough, we no longer need to act invasively; we now have the ability to selectively (de)/activate individual circuits or cell-types by introducing mutations that produce sensitivity to target stimuli.

Although either way, it would be widely treated as unethical for scientists to 'lobotomize' people to test this and that. I'm sure we could block long-term memory entirely, or paint the world in hues of one's values, or shut off the self, consciousness as a whole...

It all depends on who's interested in the applications, I suppose.

I think what Montemercy is getting at, and I'm not sure if he realises this or not, is that we live in an amoral society. More specifically, we live in a society where moral pleading is in-effective. One cannot make a case on moral grounds, only empirical ones. If you cannot measure it, it does not exist.

Morality is not measurable - ergo it is non-existent.

[Strike For The South]

I think what Montemercy is getting at, and I'm not sure if he realises this or not, is that we live in an amoral society. More specifically, we live in a society where moral pleading is in-effective. One cannot make a case on moral grounds, only empirical ones. If you cannot measure it, it does not exist.

Morality is not measurable - ergo it is non-existent.

Dat science religion.

The bane of the modern west, haughty little narcissistic know it alls

[Papewaio]

One cannot make a case on moral grounds, only empirical ones. If you cannot measure it, it does not exist.

Morality is not measurable - ergo it is non-existent.

Not entirely convinced that the components are unmeasurable or non predictable either. Morality would be a social glue much like electrostatics are glue for molecules.

Take a look at the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule or many religious food restrictions. Look at the context of the society it was developed in and think like a game designer.

Some of these rules would have given those societies advantages over the local competitors who don't observe them, or implement their opposite.

Atoms can form all sorts of molecules. Some of which are more likely to form then others given the environment they form in, some will also be more robust.

Likewise humans can form all sorts of groups. The ethical rules that are formed are shaped by the environment and some are more generally applicable then others.

[HopAlongBunny]

"Morality" maybe not; but parts of it would certainly admit to operational definitions. If you can define it in such a way as to quantify it, you can study it...whatever it is.
I believe there are studies on moral issues like greed, altruism, sacrifice, compassion...etc.