Tim Cook wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I thought that was the point of religion, yes? If you actually start 
>> talking about *why* one set of morals is better than another, then 
>> you're not longer talking about religion, but science. I have no bones 
>> to pick with that approach.
> 
> Ethics is not science. 

Actually, to clarify, what I was talking about was science. If you ask 
why certain morals are better than others, you can actually make 
hypotheses and measure it.

You can say "Greed is better than altruism, because it creates more 
wealth". Or "altruism is better than greed, because it distributes 
wealth better."

What one has to take on "faith" is that happiness is a good thing, i.e., 
that there's an actual ability to measure which morals result in 
"better" outcomes than others. Even this, however, can be debated, since 
obviously some people will say "obedience to God's will is far more 
important than life or happiness."

So in that sense, yes, it's not scientific. But then, science doesn't 
answer *why* elementary particles can have half-spin values also. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message