The greatest attainable moral and scientific equality we can attain. per se the furthest science can take us and most we can do with it morally.
science is like capitalism it has no morals unless some are applied science in any form is relative to the culture in its definition of moral controls or moral doctrine equal to moral rights moral rights of science moral rights of religion which has moral superiority ? religion or science ?
I don't think that's true. I think the universal moral value of science is honesty - honestly submitting our conclusions to testing and criticism, honestly admitting that we're wrong when that's what the evidence indicates, etc. Without honesty there could be no science.
Fixing obesity. Fixing health issue's. Fixing travel issue's via teleportation. Making people super comfortable with better housing, as has already been done. Making any information acessable to anyone, which has pretty much already been done by means of the internet. Employing specially trained highly intelligent psychologists to help those who need a little nudging in the right direction, (social science,) which is already done to a certain limited extent. Training people to grow up to be these psychologists, by presenting this a high ideal to the masses. Actually I think that obesity and health issue's could be fixed simply by selling less junk food and more nice tasting healthy food. If this doesn't suffice, the more scientific approach of inventing a food which makes one slimmer the more one eats it might. I have no idea how that would work though. A better approach would probably be to use nanotechnology to determine which ingested nutrients are actually absorbed by the body, and which are not, so that people can eat whatever the hell they want to and still remain slim and healthy. Fixing the environmental impact of fossil fuels by using sustainable energy sources instead, which is starting to become popular. Fixing untidy and polluting and inconvenient consumerism by using swarms of nanobots which take on the shape of the thing which one wants to use, then disasembling once one no longer wants to use it. That's pretty much all I can think of to do with your proposal.
Science has a different morality perhaps Scientists are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that they must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. And, then, we have the foibles of humanity and politics Wherein, morality seems to be a broadly variable concept. I do not see curing obesity as something the pharmaceutical industry would be(has been) good at. The science ain't precise-------------------- maybe in the distant future? ......................................................................... ethics vs morals someone said: An ethical man knows that he shouldn't cheat on his wife A moral man wouldn't ................... edit It seems that: Quite often, when scientists become activists hell follows after
Science has no moral, neither feelings. Science won't teach how to become a better person, a healthier person, a decent person. But thru science, studies can be made on people and obtain information of their kind of morals compared to their health, ideals, behavior in society, etc.
As far as we desire to go with it I would guess. Between facts and erroneous thinking is a field we are forced to play on, and given that morality is based on rights and wrongs, I'll suggest that science is typically in the business of getting things right.
I think of it in terms of the is-ought distinction, I guess. Science is very good (the best we've got) at telling us what is. But it is far worse at telling us what we ought to favor. Science is more or less out of its depth with right/wrong and good/evil. To the extent that we can justify our moral intuitions at all, they would seem to have a different sort of metaethical justification than do the propositions of science.
While the conflation of climate change with social justice (actually extending back three decades) MIGHT be an example of science directly interacting with contemporary secular morality, I'd still prefer to regard the latter as being limited to only a "cross-species" affair with technology. Postgenderism, for instance, depends upon technology to implement its goals of homogeneity -- the abolishment of differences and the unfairness (supposedly) arising from such. Transhumanism in general relies on technology, too, but it may be only subcategories like that which really serve a moral aspiration (i.e., social justice). On the other hand, if the idealized depictions of science are set aside (The myth of value-free science ..... Science and Ideology), and the current trend of science magazines becoming political, and the administrations of institutions introducing doctrinal policies are acknowledged... Then I might (MIGHT) have to admit the purported barrier between methodological naturalism and fashionable righteousness broke down some time ago. At any rate, there's a potential answer: The highest contribution of science to contemporary secular morality (even if mediated by the bridge of technology), might ironically be it liberating humans from the restrictions and social injustices of naturalism. By making posthumanism a reality at some point in the future. _
