In article <4754d57a$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> 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. :-)
> 
Some one did some studies on the subject about happiness, using 
psychological definitions of what qualified, and came to the conclusion 
that once people where clothed, feed and sufficiently protected from the 
weather, there was **no** measurable difference in "happiness" between 
one group and another, but that having more money didn't necessarily 
generate *greater* happiness. So, its been scientifically tested, though 
one might argue about their definitions of "happy". Though, one might 
thus argue that talking about happiness is far less relevant than many 
other factors, since it seems more or less unaffected by "most", if not 
all, of those other factors. As for the later one, which god, what is 
obedience, and how do you prove its important at all, let alone "more" 
important. Once again, when you start digging into their arguments, the 
assertions made assume, or declare, things that are fundamentally 
undefinable, in any useful context, and thus also untestable.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message