Talk:Science of morality

A-priori Axiom of Morality that is Arbritrary

"The Flourishing of Conscious Creature" is an A-Priori Axiom that is both unscientific and arbitrary. It seems to be crafted solely to fit "Human" without mentioning human.

First, why consciousness is scientifically more valuable than non consciousness? If we are going to pick arbitrary axiom of what is the most precious in morality, why would consciousness be scientifically more important than anything else? Is consciousness more important than Life? Is Life more important than non living creatures when they are identical on Chemical and Atomic level? If one day computers achieved AI level, are we responsible to ensure that it flourished? (i.e. make sure that it propagates and replicates and have freedom to do whatever it want and ensure it never run out of battery?). If someone is brain dead from accident and lost their consciousness, temporarily or permanently, does it mean that he or she is less important morally that we are allowed to do whatever we want to it? Does it mean we can desecrate corpses since they are scientifically only meat anyway?

Second, why do we need scientific basis for morality? Philosophy has covered this SUBJECTIVE topic for centuries. To get a bland, Neo Utilitarian version based on Scientific method is ... just unnecessary at best and totally misleading at worst. From a evolutionary biology point of view, if we see our teleological purpose as vehicle for our replicating DNA is to survive and propagate, and that is all that we ever care about from Scientific method point of view, then EUGENICS , RAPE, MURDER of people who does not share the same DNA should be scientifically sound EXCEPT for the ARBITRARY axiom of Flourishing of conscious creature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.131.62 (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of science necessarily depends on a priori axioms. In the physical sciences these include "what we experience is real" and "there is an objective physical reality," and in psychology and social sciences "other people have conscious experiences that resemble mine." Just because a field of science depends on a particular a priori axiom doesn't make it unscientific. Meletao (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to generally improve the quality of the article

When I first looked at this article, it kind of looked like the paragraphs were shuffled up and placed almost randomly. I’ve already (today and yesterday) reorganized it a bit. I've also removed a lot of paragraphs that didn't seem to contribute to any main point. I think there's quite a bit of such work to be done on this article. So I just wanted to explain myself here, because I've never made such extensive changes to an article before. I really do think it's necessary. BrianPansky (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. There continues to be a great deal to do. For one thing, this is far too long and diffuse in its current form; I wonder if some of the very short sections could be combined into larger sections, and some of the less central points left for articles on particular philosophers. HGilbert (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are only vaguely related. Not every ethical topic should be listed here.

I have tried to perform an initial clean-up, removing articles in whose text I could not find sufficient related content. Please feel free to add/subtract. HGilbert (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Section

At some point, the section that this link "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality#Causes_of_flourishing" linked to was removed. It appears twice in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics76.4.107.74 (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalism vs theism framing concerns

Note: This article appears to conflate descriptive claims about how science can inform moral reasoning with stronger normative claims that science can define or resolve moral questions. As written, parts of the article resemble a broader naturalism vs theism debate, particularly through the use of “flourishing” as a moral foundation and the inclusion of contested policy examples (e.g., abortion, euthanasia). Contemporary scholarship in moral psychology and philosophy tends to treat scientific approaches as contributory and constraining rather than sufficient for moral evaluation. Clarifying this distinction, or noting the ongoing debate more explicitly, might improve balance and accuracy. Michaelbaribeau (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.