Interesting that it could and should be the ultimate arbiter. Religion has much to say about suffering and happiness. Happiness is often not good. Suffering is often good. This issue is much more complex than measuring, or quantifying happiness, success, and opportunity. And what of the individual vs. the aggregate populations? There is so much that could go awry here.
It is wonderful and responsible that someone in your position is speaking out in this way. 100% agreed. But to go from here to arbitrating morality creates a circular issue. You determine what is moral and then apply the morality to our decision making process. There’s too much authority in one spot. Ironically, I believe that a historian would look back upon science failures of the distant past (such as those examples you cited above) and state that these tragedies were caused because those involved were deciding both what is moral and what experiments (exhibits, etc.) should occur. Do you really want to have all of that responsibility again?
I don’t agree with this statement, though I suppose it’s because we’re thinking about it differently. If you mean happiness that is coupled with others’ suffering, than that is not net happiness. When I say “happiness” and “suffering,” I mean the sum of both of those things in all people affected by whatever moral decision is being pondered. By the same token, suffering in one place to achieve better returns some place else is obviously not net suffering (e.g., hours of painful practice or work or whatever, but that is directed toward something that makes it all worth it.) But suffering for its own sake, or as a purification, etc., a la Mother Teresa, JP2, and the cult of suffering they both seemed to support, is morally very bad. So I would be curious what you could possibly mean by “suffering is often good,” unless it’s what I said above, suffering in the pursuit of something that is worth that suffering.
Yes it does but, in my opinion, a lot of what many religions have said about happiness and suffering has not just been wrong, but actually immoral itself. I probably don’t need a lot of examples here, but suffice it to say that I see no place for organized religion to comment on matters of morality given their terrible track record and the fact that religious morality must always remain an opt-in system.
At best, science can explain why the various kinds of pseudosciences which have been used to justify racism are invalid. Of course, that only demonstrates that those various attempted justifications are wrong in a factual sense, not morally wrong.
I absolutely understand where you are coming from. I also do not think that we are considering different aspects. The issue is way more complex than can and should be quantified scientifically. Suffering is a part of life, from which we learn, interact, interrelate, and even improve. The problem occurs when the definition of morality comes from the determiner of the response to the suffering. It’s not worth discussing a cult of suffering, because that is an outlier. But when morality is quantified by science, based upon a quotient of suffering or lack of opportunity, who’s to say that one doesn’t simply remove the sufferer? The very situations that arose in the past were made possible by the intersection of these two subjects. People were allowed to determine what was moral, and then they were allowed to make decisions that affected others based upon their assumptions. There is not enough oversight and too much authority.
It’s funny that you said this, because when I was reading your other comments, I was thinking that I’d like an opt-out system in place!! It’s silly to make the comment that “religion” has a bad track record… everyone has a bad track record. That’s why we discuss issues like this and try to be as inclusive as possible. Science has a bad track record. So, what has happened organically, instead, is that society has become the arbiter of what is moral. It’s not perfect, but it happens in the open, changes don’t occur quickly, and everyone gets to give feedback. I hope that you can see that we share a commonality (here at peaceful science ) in that you fear my system as much as I fear yours.
You are at least 78% hypocrite. Due to the small sample size, the error bar is pretty big. The probability is .05, though.
Well if you teach all children (in diverse classrooms) that there are no races and just the human race, that would help a lot. Then in science and social studies class, let everyone do both their genealogy and their genome. And watch the fun begin as they realize that they are all cousins.
For two reasons 1) it is unconstitutional and 2) Religion is inherently racist. God’s chosen people? Egyptian babies killed. Slavery, all kinds of genocide in the OT. The OT is very racist.
Racism is based on perceived differences between humans, and those differences don’t go away simply because we share a common ancestor. Racism isn’t based on science, so I don’t see how science could cure it.
You haven’t answered the question. How does science tell us what we ought to teach our children and what we ought not teach our children, and why we should or should not teach those things to our children?
Plus, science changes. One year racism may be in, the next it may be out. It’s that whole science is tentative thing. Racism is wrong sounds more like dogmatism.
Agreed. There is a cognitive sense regarding differences that we see in one another. It happens when we encounter one who is missing a limb or has suffered some other similar tragedy. We try to not look, but we notice because what we see is different than how we perceive ourselves (which is our personal norm.)
So, people will always notice racial differences, too. You can’t unsee what you see, nor can you unobserve something. As intelligent beings, we need to train ourselves to understand this response and to evaluate our thoughts and actions such that we do not act in a racist way. So, @Patrick, I think that your suggestion of starting with explanations from the science class is a good one. And this training should be continued elsewhere as well. Hopefully, by bringing the topic to the forefront, people will respond better to differences perceived, and discrimination will lessen over time.
The generation of my kids talks a great deal about race, such that it is natural for them, and not taboo like it was when I grew up (60s and 70s.) They are so much more tolerant and respond to one another in a healthy way. It makes me feel very positive regarding the future of race relations.
The key to race relations is diversity in general. The classroom and elsewhere. The town we grew up in (both my wife and I and our kids, Rancho Cordova, CA) has a diversity that very closely matched the nation as a whole. So it was a wonderful environment to see, first hand, what affect diversity has upon race relations. I agree with you, wholeheartedly!