So murder is fine, most of the world doesn’t agree murder is morally wrong. Correct?
They are opinions, they aren’t weightless, and they aren’t ambiguous there are a few almost no one disagrees with because their obviousness is so outrageously apparent.
Your slavery example doesn’t work because slavery was and is always immoral, simply overlooking that fact for profit only reinforces my point.
What’s fine mean? You’re just using it as a standin for “good” or “acceptable” which again, has no meaning without a subject. Fine for what? Good or acceptable for who?
most of the world doesn’t agree murder is morally wrong
What?
Your slavery example doesn’t work because slavery was and is always immoral
Then why, for hundreds of years, was it considered so moral in America that it took an entire war to change it? Because most people individually all just happened to lack this obvious, natural morality? Or is it because ideas of morality are made up, arise from material conditions, and are systemically reproduced in a society? That they were able to create a system of moral justifications that excused them in their own minds for supporting slavery, just like liberals today have a system of moral justifications that excuse them in their own minds for supporting the Gaza genocide?
You seem to think that “right and wrong” exist in some pure elemental form somewhere out in the universe, the way carbon and potassium do, some baseline that human actions can be measured against. They don’t. Right and wrong are figments of the human imagination, and only by accepting them for the shadows that they are can we stop chasing them in circles and finally begin to think in useful, concrete, scientific terms.
They’re not weightless, made up stuff, opinion sure, weightless not so much hence prison and societal normatives we wouldn’t imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless.
This is a tautology, this is the same argument as “God is real because we live under religious law.”
Like…yeah man, who would ever make up an arcane system of magic unproveable rules about what’s Simply Good and Simply Bad and then use that to make laws that help them control people?
wouldn’t imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless.
We do not do this, all of Epstein’s pedophile associates are still living as sadistic gods on the stolen wealth of nations.
Oh right, you’re that asshole fascist from that Ukraine thread where you argued with everyone and ignored every point made at you because you covered your ears. Also got banned too!
Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is a fascist. You get how that didn’t at all apply here and it isn’t at all relevant but sure go for character attacks since you clearly can’t argue substance.
Morals are not the same as material processes. Simply saying “evil” as a reason for something is not a scientific answer for the behavior of societies.
They aren’t, parts of social issues are hence the plethora of social sciences. You can’t objectively quantify the squishy human bits you can just narrow down the effect of the squishy stuff by quantifying what is objective.
There is no social science. There are social studies, social research and sciences that touch on society but no all encompassing social science because most of society isn’t objectively testable.
There is no study called social science, none point blank period. There’s social sciences and humanities, no social science, no sociology (which btw is generally referred to as social research because it’s not a science.)
Sorry I just think you dismissing anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, psychology, sociology, political science and more as entirely illegitimate would likely be fixed by you having a background in them off which to speak instead of spewing nonsense.
Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. Similarly history and psychology aren’t sciences and sociology isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like anthropology and archeology. History just isn’t a science at all it’s a humanities study, parts of it can be scientific but history generally isn’t science.
Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science.
That’s great but you said:
“there is no legitimate social sciences.”
Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it’s broken into subfields.
As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is:
A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area.
Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you’re probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn’t do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate.
There isn’t, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn’t a single social science but rather many sciences that don’t amount to society when you add them together.
Morals have weight homie, hand waving away immoral acts by saying they’re just opinions is obtuse at best.
Morals are weightless and made up homie, for half of American history it was “wrong” to free a slave
So murder is fine, most of the world doesn’t agree murder is morally wrong. Correct?
They are opinions, they aren’t weightless, and they aren’t ambiguous there are a few almost no one disagrees with because their obviousness is so outrageously apparent.
Your slavery example doesn’t work because slavery was and is always immoral, simply overlooking that fact for profit only reinforces my point.
What’s fine mean? You’re just using it as a standin for “good” or “acceptable” which again, has no meaning without a subject. Fine for what? Good or acceptable for who?
What?
Then why, for hundreds of years, was it considered so moral in America that it took an entire war to change it? Because most people individually all just happened to lack this obvious, natural morality? Or is it because ideas of morality are made up, arise from material conditions, and are systemically reproduced in a society? That they were able to create a system of moral justifications that excused them in their own minds for supporting slavery, just like liberals today have a system of moral justifications that excuse them in their own minds for supporting the Gaza genocide?
You seem to think that “right and wrong” exist in some pure elemental form somewhere out in the universe, the way carbon and potassium do, some baseline that human actions can be measured against. They don’t. Right and wrong are figments of the human imagination, and only by accepting them for the shadows that they are can we stop chasing them in circles and finally begin to think in useful, concrete, scientific terms.
They’re not weightless, made up stuff, opinion sure, weightless not so much hence prison and societal normatives we wouldn’t imprison people for moral failings if they were weightless.
This is a tautology, this is the same argument as “God is real because we live under religious law.”
Like…yeah man, who would ever make up an arcane system of magic unproveable rules about what’s Simply Good and Simply Bad and then use that to make laws that help them control people?
We do not do this, all of Epstein’s pedophile associates are still living as sadistic gods on the stolen wealth of nations.
We don’t live under religious law so that doesn’t apply, cool try though.
You literally described society ya genius.
That doesn’t negate the fact that 99% of the population knows what they did was morally wrong, you suck ass at examples homie.
Oh right, you’re that asshole fascist from that Ukraine thread where you argued with everyone and ignored every point made at you because you covered your ears. Also got banned too!
Yes yes, everyone that disagrees with you is a fascist. You get how that didn’t at all apply here and it isn’t at all relevant but sure go for character attacks since you clearly can’t argue substance.
Morals are not the same as material processes. Simply saying “evil” as a reason for something is not a scientific answer for the behavior of societies.
It’s also not an excuse, it doesn’t need to be scientific since societal issues aren’t scientific and there is no legitimate social sciences.
Hahahahaha holy shit
They aren’t, parts of social issues are hence the plethora of social sciences. You can’t objectively quantify the squishy human bits you can just narrow down the effect of the squishy stuff by quantifying what is objective.
Why is social science not legitimate?
There is no social science. There are social studies, social research and sciences that touch on society but no all encompassing social science because most of society isn’t objectively testable.
Do you think humans exist outside of the material world? Why would social science not be a science?
There is no study called social science, none point blank period. There’s social sciences and humanities, no social science, no sociology (which btw is generally referred to as social research because it’s not a science.)
Stemlords should be forced to study social sciences.
Neat?
Sorry I just think you dismissing anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, psychology, sociology, political science and more as entirely illegitimate would likely be fixed by you having a background in them off which to speak instead of spewing nonsense.
Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. Similarly history and psychology aren’t sciences and sociology isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like anthropology and archeology. History just isn’t a science at all it’s a humanities study, parts of it can be scientific but history generally isn’t science.
That’s great but you said:
“there is no legitimate social sciences.”
Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it’s broken into subfields.
As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is:
A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area.
Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you’re probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn’t do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate.
There isn’t, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn’t a single social science but rather many sciences that don’t amount to society when you add them together.