I am posting this mostly because of the trainwreck of a thread about atheism ruling the world and I suspect that this is what he was really after.
So the debate, How would the world be different if we woke up one fine century to discover that our leaders and governments are run on rational, science based ideals with careful thought towards logical governing instead of government by “the Feelies” (the feelies, as in “I feel that X is Y there for laws and stuff inspite of all the evidence contradicting my precious feelings”.
They would quickly be voted out of office, unless the vast majority of people thought primarily along those lines, too. Imagine how most people would react if Vulcans suddenly took over.
Well, there will still be economic conflicts for scarce goods, and justifications as to why certain constituent groups are more deserving than others. Are we doing away with elections and presuming a permanent ruling class of benevolent technocrats (or a “zeroth-law” world run by robots)?
the line about one fine century was meant to mean at least some what gradual change to this type of leadership, you choose what century this all began
how about elections, only now in order to run for any public office you have to pass a test demonstrating your grasp of the above mentioned Scientific method, logic, and rational thinking. (added bonus, there are laws in place to seriously punish those who attempt to use their elected office to push for “feelie based laws” once elected.
“So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do.” -Benjamin Franklin
Moral principles can’t be established scientifically - they are faith-based, and need to be accepted as axiomatic. Therefore, your hypothetical is impossible.
They can be established rationally and logically though. Do you have anything to back up the need to be self evident? or faith based? or is this just how you feel about things?
No, they can’t. Ultimately you are going to bump up against “just because”, which is (as mentioned) faith-based and axiomatic. If you are going to assert “the good of society” or “for the survival of the species” or anything else as the basis for some moral system, then you need to justify why that is valid and not something else. Literally anything else - there is no way to establish that mass murder or fascism is bad and happiness is good without assuming it.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Those without faith are therefore without morals?
[/QUOTE]
Sort of. More precisely, anyone who asserts a moral position as more valid than any other moral position is making a faith statement whether they like it or not.
There are no exceptions, and repetition and restatement do not establish the validity of a position.
I think you have had this explained to you previously.
When comparing logic and emotion based government I was supposed to do…what?
If I feel that the soul enters the body at the moment of insemination and therefore all contraception and abortion are murder I am wrong regardless of those feelings, and at the very least ignorant of some pretty basic biology. If I continue to push for laws restricting contraception and abortion after I have had the birds and the bees explained to me I am now engaged in full on government by the feelies.
It happens hourly in this country and all over the world.