1) Chicago is a 2 hour drive from Indiana were you can get a gun in your happy meal.
2) Mass shootings aren't just about gun laws. They are also an issue of media exposure and a cultural obsession with mass murderers.
3) Let's point out that the killer is a pro-Nazi Trump supporter, let's not conveniently ignore that. Especially after what happened at the capitol.
4) Gun laws work when the system is funded and you don't have half the government crippling gun laws and reasearch into gun ownership. Try getting nuclear grade uranium and you'll realize how effective gun laws will work.
No, I don't know about the grand communist plan.. please tell me. I haven't read the literature. Actually I'm not sure what you brought it up in an argument about the Trump supporters attacking the capitol that turned out to me BLM/ANTIFA/Lizard people operatives. No one here is talking about communism.
They are pawns of the true enemy of America... the English monarchy. I though I made that clear.
Looks like solar causes the Earth to warm more than oil based pollution.
That's not what the paper says. The paper is talking about how solar power plants affect local temperatures. This is not a study about global temperature increases due to fossil fuels compared to the the Photovoltaic Island effect.
Go ahead, the stakes aren't very high. Go full Nazi on me daddy.
Pipelines are about transportation and efficiency not production. You can still bring petroleum/gas through other means. Nord stream is about russian production of gas. The prices are being driven up do to the cutoff of Russian fossil fuels since they are a mayor producer.
What is there to argue here? What does the study have to do with the green new deal?
It's okay outlaw, you can use my heat-proof bunker when the rapture... I mean when climate change destroys the planet.
It gets worse. The Antifa BLM operatives were actually controlled by russian spies in order to destabilize US democracy, but the actual mastermind is Queen Elizabeth trying to take back the colonies.
Who knows what else is going to be uncovered from this...
Which caused the inflation and high prices we see.
You do understand that it's the federal reserve (not Biden) the government entity that controls the printing of currency? and that the two currently driving factors for inflation are covid restrictions worldwide and Russia gas/oil imports.
Your solution for a populace that can't afford the basics is tax them more.
With current tax laws, if the IRS was funded properly and persecuted weathy individual illegally evading taxes, it would be more than enough to cover the budget deficits. As for increasing taxes, taxes don't go into a black hole. There are established methods of using taxes to stimulate economic growth.
By "out of money" he means they have no more purchasing power.
I was being factious about the gold... Out of money didn't mean the economy ran out, Biden is talking about budget allocationand asking a Republican controlled congress to approve more money because that's how the system works.
Purchasing power isn't related to a country's internal economic engine but a relative measure of many currencies comparing the potential ability to purchace comparable goods. That's why you use the price of a bigmacs or the ratio of gold to silver as stardand candles.
It's like inception. What does communism have to do with the current left or marriage in the US? Are there communist elected officials in power in the USA passing laws? Wasn't the US built on the concept of separation of church and state, and the country that invented secularism? I have so many questions...
So the conclusion of the video was that the restriction of traditional marriage is a requirement for a functional society... but provides no evidence on how this is true after complaining about a news "article?" misrepresenting marriage statistics.
So the point is that the left is trying to redefine marriage to be whatever... from a traditional marriage? But forget that mormons already keep trying that, or that biblical traditional marriage is between a man and his father-in-law's property.
oh no, I guess he'll have to print more. He can also increase taxes. The US could also buy gold and sit on it.
Like my grandfather said: it's not wrong if you pray afterwards.
lol. I'm afraid no there isn't
(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(2) : complete trust
So yeah there a difference.
Character assassination is an argument is never a good sign that you are a good faith actor in those discussion. None of you posts so far have address the topic at hand, you are going on irrelevant tangents.
We are only going to sit here all day because you do not possess the necessary presence of mind to concede when you are wrong
I'll admit I'm wrong when you make a good argument.
You are misrepresenting science as an infallible, magical solution to everything,
No I didn't, don't twist my words. I TRUST in science because it has proven time and time again to being a reliable methods for understanding the world.
Ignoring when somebody else uses practical examples to disprove something you have written is the precise opposite of scientific reasoning.
You haven't proven anything. The core of your augment is that science relies of faith the same way religious do. There's nothing more to your argument than fallacious reasoning and getting defensive.
No, the problem we are having is that you are wrong and don't seem to realise despite my having explained why.
You haven't made a convincing argument and avoiding the discussion. Faith has many definitions my entire argument is based on ONE of those definitions.
Theoretical physics relies on no practical models*
Theoretical physics doesn't form models based on experimentation (they are pure mathematical models); However, to confirm such models experimentation a required part of the process.
Since you evidently have no interest in acknowledging when your argument is wrong, I'd like to end the conversation here on the grounds that it is pointless. A debate requires both parties to accept responsibility for the validity (or non-validity) of their own arguments. Hence, this is not a debate. This is you abusing language to try to save face.
I'm sorry you feel that way but you haven't made a convincing argument.
Ahahahaha! So observations are made without observing? Shut up or I'll put you on ignore.
Yes indirect observation like the entire field of quantum mechanics. When particle accelerators collide particles, a lot of those particles exists for nano seconds at a time. The statistical models they use work backwards to rebuild the particle that decayed, and that's how they know those particles exist.
You can put me on ignore all you want, I'm not harassing you, I haven't insulted you. It just show that you are having a hard time holding you own and resorting to pettiness.
Refusing to acknowledge when your own argument has been trashed is significantly worse than yelling.
Give an example of such said "trashing", and I'll acknowledge it. I'm not a prideful person I'm willing to admit if I've made mistakes and bad arguments.
You have no evidence of that,
You are shifting the burden of proof. If you make the claim you are responsible for providing evidence. If I make the claim that I caught a fairy in my back yard. You then say: "fairies don't exists". Then I respond: "You have no evidence of that". You see how ridiculous that is since I'm the only one that can provide verifiable evidence. Same applies with claims of the afterlife. A simple question that you can ask is: "Where is the afterlife located?", and see that the arguments made don't rely on verifiable evidence.
which makes it even more stupid when you pretend to understand what science is.
That's not a good argument. You have to be more throughout than that and explain what I don't understand about science, and how to relates to my main points.
But that requires faith though because you need to have the faith based belief that reality won't magically flip on its head with the passage of time.
Like I told Burrito, you guys are not understanding the argument. There's a distinction between faith as in TRUST and faith as a CLAIM TO KNOWLEDGE. That's the difference between "I have faith in the engineers that this bridge won't fall" vs "I believe through faith that god exists". My argument is about CLAIMS TO KNOWLEDGE (ones that deny the use of evidence).
You used the word "distracted" wrong.
On no! I made a typo, I guess my argument is invalid.
"its" is a possessive, "it's" is a contraction of "it is": Its not like you can use empirical evidence
Improper comma: possibly be true, for using
We can sit all day here correcting each other's grammar or you can actually focus on the what is being said.
Throwing insults is like yelling. It feels like winning but it's really not. Give me something substantial to argue about, if not, don't waste my time. There's plenty of other troll bait on this site.
It's a stone cold fact that science relies on faith in certain assumptions about reality.
I think the problem we are having here is about definition. If you are using faith as in TRUST, than yeah I agree with you; However, I've been using the word faith as a claim to knowledge (Knowing without evidence, without verification).
Ever hear about theoretical physics?
Theoretical physics is at the edge of human understanding. These models are absolutely testable (they are simply not created by experimentation) which is why we hold Albert Theory of Relativity in such high regard for making the prediction that gravity bends light. A concept that made no sense in Newtonian physics.
Most things we need to know about the universe are not testable and observable, such as how it began, how long it will last, and what will happen at the end.
Observations are made indirectly like the Cosmic Microwave Background as evidence of the Big Bang. There are things we don't know YET, but models are created all the time and become more accurate at making predictions. Science might have multiple current scenarios on how the universe will end, but as it gathers more evidence those models are discarded one by one.
There are absolutely experiments testing those things, just look at particle accelerators. They try to simulate the energy levels of the the Big Bang and gather data.
If science predicts things then obviously that is an expression of faith, since nobody can see the future.
Again, if we are talking about trust, absolutely. Scientific models make extremely accurate predictions, if they didn't, they wouldn't be useful.
No they don't. I mean, they do, but it is preposterous to suggest we know enough about the nature of reality to ascertain those probabilities with any degree of accuracy
I didn't say they were attainable values only that they exist.
If you travelled back 200 years people would laugh in your face if you even told then about racial integration, let alone the duality of light, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle or the fact that time moves at different rates dependent upon where you are stood on the Earth. In 200 years from now, people will look back at our era with the same curious amusement.
We've made social and scientific progress as a species, we understand the world better now.
There's nothing wrong with a vegan diet. It can be as healthy as a omnivorous diet or even a carnivorous one. Human's evolved to have very flexible digestive systems, as long as you are getting you macro nutrients... you'll survive.
She is right that faith is required in science just as it is in religion.
No, I strongly disagree. No faith is required to hold a belief based on science. Science creates models based of what is testable and observable. Those models need to make useful predictions. If they fail at making those predictions, they are distracted and replaced. That how science knows where the stars will me in a million years, where hurricanes will hit in the future, how long a pandemic will last. Faith on the other hand is a conclusion supported by no evidence, resilient to contradictory evidence and criticism.
no piece (or amount) of evidence is ever statistically foolproof.
Yes, however... beliefs have a statically value of how attuned they are to reality. I believe that determining which of those beliefs are the most true is vitally important.
The construction of what constitutes evidence and the preference for evidentiary reasoning are both taken on faith just as much as any theistic construct.
Faith is the claim that you believe something despite not knowing if it's true or false. Evidence is a process in which assertions are verified. They are not equal as you claim. Believing that airplanes fly do to mechanical forces acting on the plane, is not equivalent to believing airplanes fly because fairies are carrying it. One is based on the rigor of the scientific process, the other on fantasy.
how do you know that evidence exists?
Evidence is something you present. It exists an abstract of reason that can be used to prove or disprove claims. Asking how I know evidence exists is basically asking: "what evidence do I have that evidence exists?".
how do you know evidenced beliefs are preferable?
Because beliefs based on evidence are falsifiable while those based on faith are not. There's isn't any amount of contradictory evidence that changes the mind of the faithful.
Because reason and logic can't prove themselves
Reason and logic are abstracts of what constitutes proper argument. The same way you know that you shouldn't take down a load-baring wall in a house. Logic dictates the most reasonable conclusion you can make based on a premise. You are basically asking: "can you prove 1 + 1 = 2", and the answer is yes.
Your beliefs and way of existing are not obviously better just because they're evidenced (that begs the question).
No, begging the question would mean my argument is recursive, it's not; however, you are drawing several false equivalences. If I told you I have a purple dragon in my garage. Would you just accept that, or would you demand evidence?
Secularists also organize and push political policies that affect everyone
Not even close... The religious make up 80% of the US, the non-religious only make up 15% of that. Trying to organize secularist, atheist and agnostics is like trying to herd cats.
Secularists also want their belief system to be the only belief system in government (what are you yourself advocating for if not the removal of theistic belief systems from government?)
Secularism means that NO religion dominates government and policy. It says nothing about the removal of belief systems Stalin-style.
Secularists also use their beliefs to deny the rights of others and attack them
What rights are people being denied do to secularists? Secularists don't control any one political party in the US. Which is not of the religious which control most of the government.
(you think it'd be ideal for theists to hide their beliefs, which is basically the same as anti-gay theists asking gays to hide their sexuality). The practices you describe aren't limited to theists - they're human attributes.
First, being Christian is a choice, being gay is not. My issue is not so much that you want to flaunt your faith, but the vitriol the religious throw feeling justified in their faith. As a gay person I cannot tell you how many times I've been told: "Your lifestyle is going to send you to hell" and "You are possessed by a demon". I'm not going to argue that anyone can be a "bad" person. What I will argue is that the morality that Christianity, Jewish, and Muslim faiths are all antiquated and make no sense in today's world..
Not all beliefs are created equal. One of my main points is that religious beliefs uphold the denial of evidence so a belief can be held. Secular beliefs, as you call them, uphold evidence as the core of those beliefs. When I ask of the religious: "How do you know you are not wrong about your belief?". They usually reply with: "God is perfect and I know he exists". I then ask: "How do you know He exists?". The response ends up being: "I believe through faith." So let me ask you this: "Is believing through faith (believing without knowing) the same as believing through evidence?"
It would be be ideal if the religious kept their beliefs as a hidden personal trinket. They don't, however. The religious organize and push political policies that affect everyone. Some want their religion to be the only religion in government. They use their beliefs to deny the rights of others and attack them. That's why it matter if their beliefs are deluded.
Are you okay? I don't understand why you went full Karen on this debate.
As far as logic goes... you have given a perfect example of what NOT to do in a debate.
Let's learn the Logic commandments:
1) Thau shall not use personal attacks
2) Thau shall not deviate from the topic at hand
3) Thau shall not use the threat of force
4) Thau shall not introduce unrelated topics
5) Thau shall not beg the question
I'm only giving half because I don't feel kind today.
Threatening me a gay man with gay sex, definitely the highlight of my day. Alternative ending, you and I, right now, doggy style. We'll post it on xvideos the superior porn site.
I was being facetious, I understand that there's more nuance to this topic.
Have you seed the movie Bubble Boy? This boy lives his entire life in a bubble believing that if he came out of it, he would die. He denied himself so many experiences because of that fear. It is only when he leaves the bubble that he truly starts living. He had a false believe about the world that impeded him from doing things he wanted to do. Well.. that's religion. If a believe in God is false, that means your morals, actions, politics, even they way you treat others is based on a false believe.
Establishing validity for not only God but the version of God someone ascribes to seems very important. This is where it all falls apart because at the point you start asking for evidence, you are told: "You find God through faith, believe without knowing". That's at the core of many religions. It's not only a way to believe in God, but to justify any believe in anything.
You takes the stories of the bible, koran, and torah. They are all part of a mythology that share a lot of features with pagan and dead religions, there's ancient writings that show that ancient Jews were polytheists. Evidence that the torah was written by 4 different authors that modified each other's text. That the new testament was modified time and time again after it was originally written.
So at this point to can take and claim that your version of believing is the right one, or just realize that these are believe systems that were created by people that had ancient ideas about how the world worked. Which by today standards... were very wrong.
Let's take a few steps back... What is a God? How do you know something is a God? How do you know it exists? Why only one and not many? When you ask these questions you NEVER get the same answers. Everyone has their own vague ideas about God, and that's reflected in the amount of sects Christians, Muslims, and Jews have. God seems like a reflection of themselves than something real.
At the core of the belief is Faith: believing without certainty. Many times I've argued about this... I get essentially the same contrived answer: "I know for certain that God exists because I don't know". Faith is paradoxical at best, it demands certainty of a belief without the assurance of verifying if it's true. Imagine if that's how we actually ran the world, if judges simply believed plaintiffs because they demanded faith.
I've never seen a good argument for god. They're all contrived machinations of logic and reason. Many times arguments that come from an emotional attachment to the belief itself. I blame the indoctrination that we all had as children. It stays there like a tick for the brain, sucking away the ability to see beyond the primitive morality that religion teaches.
Evidence is meaningless in the eyes of those who have closed their mind and live in a world of perfect certainty. It doesn't matter how many arguments you knock down, it only makes the religions more reassured of themselves. Believes that then they use to tell others how to live, even by force.
Give me actual evidence and I'll believe... aside from that there's nothing else to say.
Population graphs are not linear systems, they're chaotic. What that means is that populations don't simply grow in one direction, there are a multitude of factors that grow in different directions that gives you a final result. When Russia fought in WW2 they had a lot of casualties, those deaths still appear in populations graphs today as depressions in numbers every few years.
The massive increase in human population is due to the fact we can now mass produce resources, less people die at birth, and people live longer due to modern medicine. Population culling of any kind wouldn't result in more resources for everyone, it would actually result in Economic downturns because there's less people producing (or working and consuming).
A lot of the problems mentioned in the post are efficiency problems. Better recycling, green energy, sustainable farming, cleaning efforts, regulation of pollutants, and alternative materials for electronics. This are all things in the realm of possibility that would allow us not to destroy the planet as OP put it. Things that wouldn't go away if there are less people, we would just destroy the planet slower.
How do you know he created everything? How do you know that your idea of creation is right, but the ancient Greeks or Egyptians is wrong?
No overpopulation is not the problem. Efficient use and distribution of resources are bigger ones.
Why waste a life living in a fantasy when reality is much more refreshing? There's no afterlife, no Jesus, no god. Don't waste your life believing what is essentially mythology.
Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Most people that are taken to a hospital because of a suicide attempt usually don't repeat the attempt when the get back home.
Today's youth are not handling the current state of the world very well, that's why getting therapy is such an important aspect to reducing attempts, and also teaching people how to handle circumstances that out of their control and focus on the aspects that are.
The other mayor factor is that depression is on the rise and that's the thing that's missing from this discussion. Depression is very debilitating condition, it's not something someone can willpower out of, and that a lot of times leads to suicide attempts. Again, this is something that a therapist/psychiatrist is trained to handle. What I feel the big issue is, is that access to mental health services in the US are prohibitively expensive which is exacerbating the problem, but that a discussion for another time.
What are we suppose to debate here? You are basic asking what flavor of ice cream is best and expecting so sort of discussion... in the end it's all opinion there's nothing to discuss.
No, we should be using Roman numerals to uphold the values of Western society. It's easier too. How much is DCLXVI * V, It's MMMCCCXXX Obviously.
1) Covid-19 is a new virus that no one has immunity to, so it can spread very quickly.
2) In terms of lethality is one of the deadliest flu that is out in the wild.
3) It's more contagious than other flus.
4) It kills older people at a much higher rate than younger ones, putting older folks as risk population and younger ones as vectors for spreading the disease.
5) People that survive Covid-19 are left with permanent lung damage, and there's evidence it causes blood cloths.
6) Since the Covid-19 is spreading so quickly there a chance it can mutate and allow itself to re-infect people.
7) At this point, the best strategy to prevent tons of people from dying is to put restrictions that slow the spread of the virus, mostly to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed by cases.
To me it sounds like those people are buying into a unfounded conspiracy than looking at the facts. Sweden decided to allow people to get infected (didn't put restrictions) and now are suffering because of it, a lot of people have died... and the sad truth is that a lot of those deaths are preventable.
Neither, humans evolved an immune system in order to survive. For a very long time people constantly died of horrible diseases. It wasn't until the development of vaccines that herd immunity became a thing.
Just look to the Right and you'll have all the proof you need.
FIFY
You literally have provided zero material, and I'm the one that should be embarrassed. At least if you're going to argue for you position, don't rely so heavily right-wing talking points that are easy to debunk. Better luck next time.
It's not that they can't come up with an ID, it's what counts as a valid ID to vote. These laws aren't targeting fraudulent voters. A 2014 GAO study showed that these laws are reducing turnout by 3% targeting poor and minority voters. As turns out they struggle to acquire the types of IDs every other American has no problem getting, and that's by design because the people making the law don't want them to vote.
Voter ID laws limit legitimate voters. You should only have to prove your voting status when you register to vote, which already bars illegal immigrants (and others) from voting because they don't have the proper documentation or status.
And yes, it absolutely affects elections and in a way you apparently don't like.
saying something is colder than something else is objectively true or false
It's not an objective true or false, that's a relative claim. You are confusing logical statements with objective statements. Saying for example, the sun is colder than neutron star. While true, we would be dealing with temperatures so high it's absurd. But astronomers know this because they have a very precise way to measure this concept. Which again, it's not true of morality, even when it comes to making relative statements.
temperature was objective long before we could measure it, despite the fact that we once only knew it subjectively.
Just because temperature is an objective fact doesn't mean morality exists in the same form. Simply because temperature used to be subjective doesn't imply morality will stop being subjective in the future.
I haven’t presented my version of morality.
If I understand correctly, you are arguing that morality stems from evolution. If so, that implies a version of morality that differs from others.
I cannot illustrate that absolute health exists. Nonetheless we can show that some things are healthier than others
In science, bad health means a disruption in expected functioning, which is something you can measure. Two people living with AIDS can be tested to see which one is in worse health by measuring their T-cell count. Something you can't do with morality, or any moral dilemma.
One must only know that its existence is independent of experience
If you want to KNOW it's objective you need to model it and test it. Without that it doesn't matter if it's independent of experience. How would you even know that the reason something is hot is because it contains the element fire, and cold because it contains the element water. You have to model and test that model in verify it's validity.
It is the fact that it is an evolved trait
That doesn't make morality objective. Creativity is an evolved trait but that doesn't make it objective. For it to be objective it must exist outside the human experience. The second issue is that if evolution is our guide for morality you end up the issue that nature is full of things we find objectionable, like cannibalism, incest, rape, violence, etc. So even with that interpretation of morality it is still incredibly inconsistent.
Some languages are better than others for communication. Some morality is better than others for human well-being.
Languages are products of the culture they form in, they fit the needs of the people speaking it. That's also true of morality. There's no way to determine which is the "best" language as much as determining the "best" morality.
Morality is always a system of propriety of conduct. It cannot, by definition be otherwise. Though the specifics of that system will vary.
The specifics vary so much there's no way to determine what humans agree on. Like I said in my original post, incest being objectionable is about the few we all agree on.
As I said science has discovered the objective nature of morality, scientists simply do not discuss it in these terms
What scientists have studied doesn't tell you why - let's say - abortion is right or wrong. They are studying group dynamics and behavior, and what morality means inside a group.
Science has shown that morality plays a necessary role for humans and it exists because of evolution. These two facts are sufficient to know that morality is objective.
That doesn't make morality objective. Art has been very important to human tribal dynamics, that doesn't make art objective.
The “very specific” form you are referring to is merely the descriptive definition of morality. Morality, in any form, is never not a code of conduct.
I think you misunderstand what I'm arguing. Morality is a code of conduct, I'm not going to argue against that (maybe I caused some confusing earlier). What that code of conduct is - is something that is not objective, especially where that code of conduct comes from.
You have an idea of where that code of conduct comes from, and you are using that to say that is is possible to find the "best and most morally valid law", what I'm arguing is that there's not.
I have established the objective nature of morality. Your response so far seem to be that you still believe it is subjective.
You have not established objective morality, far from it. You simply have used your own interpretation and using that to argue that your view of morality is objective when it's not. Like I've said before, in order to establish objective morality you would need to use a specific language to even approach the topic, relative statements don't suffice.
I want to know exactly what specifically you believe is subjective about what I have presented.
That you can establish a "best, most functional, or most morally valid law". The essence of such statement put you in the realm of pure subjectivity. There's no means to establish such law, even with relative statements. Even if we both agree that evolution is the source of all morality.
Immigrant foreigners have little to no political power and aren't trying to affect elections to further their own political agenda. While Russia affecting elections sets a precedent of what is possible now to undermine democracy by a non-democratic government.
No I didn't, you just failed to see the connection. It's due to how white folks see themselves, it's their own thoughts and feelings about belonging to the white race. In some instances it's shame, in other it's pride.
Saying the last person caught in white robes was a democrat fails to really capture where in the political spectrum the KKK is at. Hint, it's on the right voting for conservatives. When David Duke runs for political office as a Democrat, maybe then you'll have a case.
I imagine for the same reason conservatives put on white robes and call themselves wizards.
Right, that's my point. How can anyone determine such law without it being just someone's opinion.
Oh, hi outlaw. How's your day going?
Are you trying to sound intelligent ??????
No, even if I tried, I will never sound as intelligent as you.
Dummy is Rape and Murder questionable in your mind ????????????
The question being asked is about finding the "most morally valid law", not why we find certain things objectionable. So let me ask you this. What makes murder wrong?
That depends on whether you believe human rights should be awarded to certain people or be universal.
Inheritance of mental disorders is not a straight forward subject. For example, during the holocaust 75%-100% of people with schizophrenia were either killed or sterilized. Studies postwar showed that the prevalence of schizophrenia was actually higher than expected. To say the least, it didn't work - which is counter-intuitive since schizophrenia is one of the most hereditary mental illness.
The same would apply for autism. What would preventing them from having children accomplish?
The existence of an objective standard, one independent of our perception, does not imply that we can sufficiently perceive all the necessary variables required to test at the level you propose
When you want to find the best and most moral law, you require a precise and objective way of measuring morality. For example, when we say something is cold, that's vague and subjective. When you say it's -20 degrees Celsius, there's is no confusion on what that means. Morality would need something similar in order for it to become objective. It doesn't suffice to say something is good or bad, moral or immoral.
While we cannot know with certainty which individual actions are best suited for our well-being, either individually or on the whole, we can know that some actions are detrimental.
Your statement would only be true if we assume your version of morality was the only that existed. The issue is that you would have to prove that an absolute morality exists, and then also prove that how you model morality is the standard we should use for all morality.
We know that there is a whole objective world out there that we cannot perceive and thus, cannot test.
In order to know if something is an objective truth it must be modeled and tested. Also, simply because we don't fully understand the nature of morality doesn't mean it exists outside the realm of human subjectivity. Morality could be a mechanism that arises from social behavior instead of survival. It could also mean that it exists in many forms, not in one objective form.
The precise differences that we once could not detect still existed prior to our detection. Morality is no different.
You don't know that morality would fall into this category. Trying to argue that morality exists outside subjectivity, is similar to arguing that objective beauty exists. What is the best and most beautiful thing in the universe?
Science has. It’s simply that people do not discuss it in these terms, though we are beginning to.
Science is not finding objective morality. They are modeling moral behavior and studying how morality arises. Those are very different things.
is so incredibly complex that even though we’ve done it since forever, you believe it cannot properly be done.
It's not that it cannot be properly done. It's that you are assuming morality can only exist in a very specific form. Especially one that can establish a best and most moral law.
It can, though not precisely. A true statement need not be precise, or even consistent in all contexts, to be true.
Yes, but doesn't mean an objective morality exist, especially one that exists outside subjectivity. A morality that can be used to establish the moral value of every single action and behavior.
