Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion

[Askthepizzaguy]

But you are now postulating two other kinds of life forms. If they have morality it comes from them, and is particular to them--they might even have no use for it. So it seems to me like your are really arguing that morality is inherent to humanity, which is what I'm saying...

I challenge you on that. Other beings, sufficiently advanced, could understand chemistry and mathematics. Those are objective things. If there is an objective definition for morality, a scientific one, then that definition can apply to all intelligent sentient life. I agree with you on a thousand points, but I challenge you that morality is purely a human construct, because you are basing that on observation alone. If there are underlying universal principles, they would apply to everyone and everything that it applies to, human or not. I don't have any proof of that, but we are talking theory. If you want a scientific morality, based in reason, then you're talking about one based on things which are not merely human opinions, but functions of our existence. If there is ever to be any morality based on something besides anger or joy or belief, which does not equal morality, then it has to be based on objective things.

Objective things exist outside of humanity and would apply to all sentient life.

If we one day met an intelligent, alien species, but they enslaved other intelligent beings against their will, we might have a universal basis for showing them why it is immoral, based on universal, actual principles.

I wouldn't agree with any form of moral theory was broken simply because now we aren't talking about humans anymore. Then it simply becomes our opinions again. I don't think that science should be based on solely that.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I challenge you on that. Other beings, sufficiently advanced, could understand chemistry and mathematics. Those are objective things. If there is an objective definition for morality, a scientific one, then that definition can apply to all intelligent sentient life.

But could these being understand neuroscience? You are assuming that a moral system is necessary for these beings. If there is no life, there is no morality. Chemistry would not be a valid discipline if nothing that it related to existed. You may as well argue that "buy low, sell high" is an inherent law of the universe.

If we one day met an intelligent, alien species, but they enslaved other intelligent beings against their will, we might have a universal basis for showing them why it is immoral, based on universal, actual principles.

If they don't have the moral feelings we do, they will not be convinced.

Critters in the forest can hear the tree fall, and we can observe that using scientific instruments.

They don't hear it fall if there is "no one to hear it fall" as the saying usually goes.

Sound is a very real physical phenomenon which I could prove to any alien species, just as I can prove it to you.

I'm afraid not. Look out your window, and then describe what you see to a blind man. Describe "blue" to him. Sound is not an inherent phenomena, only the bouncing of air molecules is.

[The Stranger]

I challenge you on that. Other beings, sufficiently advanced, could understand chemistry and mathematics. Those are objective things. If there is an objective definition for morality, a scientific one, then that definition can apply to all intelligent sentient life. I agree with you on a thousand points, but I challenge you that morality is purely a human construct, because you are basing that on observation alone. If there are underlying universal principles, they would apply to everyone and everything that it applies to, human or not. I don't have any proof of that, but we are talking theory. If you want a scientific morality, based in reason, then you're talking about one based on things which are not merely human opinions, but functions of our existence. If there is ever to be any morality based on something besides anger or joy or belief, which does not equal morality, then it has to be based on objective things.

Objective things exist outside of humanity and would apply to all sentient life.

If we one day met an intelligent, alien species, but they enslaved other intelligent beings against their will, we might have a universal basis for showing them why it is immoral, based on universal, actual principles.

I wouldn't agree with any form of moral theory was broken simply because now we aren't talking about humans anymore. Then it simply becomes our opinions again. I don't think that science should be based on solely that.

no. just because one can understand it doesnt make it true. everyone can understand christianity surely. but that does not make it true. everyone can understand the idea of the earth being flat but that does not make it true. I'm sure there are more people having a hard time understanding maths than christianity, does this make christianity more truthful than maths? mathematics is comprehensible yes, it is a very neat system, but it is only true when you accept the system, it is only true within the system. in the same way that god is true when you accept the religion.

and why is science so neccesarily objective when it is still being performed by humans. nothing humans produce can ever be 100% objective.

bah scientists and priests... both metaphysici.

how can you explain the change from sentient to intelligent. surely if morality is objective it is as wrong to kill a human infant as it is to kill a infant cow (calf). or does the moral objective rule only apply to killing within ones species. against which i again take the baboon infant killer example. and if the baboon is not intelligent enough is it accounted for a species or individual. if accounted for as a species, than would the case arive that an superintteligent baboon would do all kinds of stuff morally wrong for humans it is not wrong for him because his species as a whole are deemed outside morality. if accounted for indivually, than also the stupid humans would fall outside morality.