3 ms·
I would argue that a strictly rationalist or at least secular morality should be applied given the sheer religious or spiritual diversity of the global populati
by arbitrary_name 8y ago
I would argue that a strictly rationalist or at least secular morality should be applied given the sheer religious or spiritual diversity of the global population.
And regarding your latter point,it is as you say simplistic - much like the proverbial bacterium on an agar plate, our growth imperative will destroy our future if we overrun the bounds of our environment. I think we will see the issue become more important as the consequences of overpopulation (with respect to resource consumption and carrying capacity) begin to bite.
- BadThink6655321 8y agoHow do you arrive at an acceptable secular morality, especially since science claims that it cannot speak to morality?
- TeMPOraL 8y agoScience cannot speak to general morality, as an abstract set of axiomatically good values, because it tends to tell us that those are completely arbitrary. But science also teaches us that humans have a set of common, shared values, and while they may be arbitrary in general, they're not arbitrary to us. And they're shared, because humans are not isolated minds, each coming to existence ex nihilo, but in fact are connected through the process of reproduction. All of us have brain architecture we've inherited from a common ancestor. This is how science can point us where to look for some practical morality.