why should the neutral science not call into question moral?

Morality is fundamentally different from country to country, which only shows that only one moral dazugehörigkeitsmerkmal's society to a. But why should the science not as sexual morality which is characterized mainly ecclesiastical questions in question?

The best answer

You've all very vague and imprecise. First and foremost I would only problematize to all "neutral science". Do you mean a neutral part of the science or the sciences in general are neutral? The latter I would rather doubt.

Secondly refute certain biological, medical, sociological, psychological, psychoanalytical, historical, philosophical and theological knowledge factually certain forms and certain assumptions of church and religious sexual morality. Here disproves the reality your acceptance of a ban, resulting in the third evil.

Despite certain intersections of traditional religious sexual taboos, there are in fact many and various individual aspects and you will probably "morality" on the whole hardly criticize (can). Now it depends exactly on what aspects you so even mean and what tendency solutions boils all. Because the advocated liberation of those taboos can have the opposite effect and establish new prohibitions command just different hypocritical and condemn.

And I mean that once could bring every * r expressed, whom he desired like and how he sees himself in it without being so condemned or discriminated against, would be a consistent minimum condition for this.

You wrote in a commentary, monogamy would not put, for example, in question. As I have just "monogamy study" Googled, the first entry was a report on the Harvard Medical School, who I assume simply times, they would school Scientific work and publish. Even capital punishment, abortion, sodomy, and so on is guaranteed dialectically illuminated. Psychologist Timothy Leary has prepared theses which can conclude it would be useful to treat children with LSD and similar substances. That would be in my Bekammtenkreis guarantees immoral. But it is treated scientifically. Only the question is: do you want to pay the real consequences that your children actually receive it sometime with LSD? Since the morality of science is actually limits.

Is everything nich '.

Science is not "neutral", but objectively. Scientists are not neutral, but man, citizen. Morality is not "fundamentally" different from country to country, but only in some matters in some cultural areas compared. The moral values ​​that someone has, it has in accordance with the social order of his nation mostly and largely consistent with this (coming back). Sexual morality in this country is not dominated church.

Hear you 'look around, who has all his sexual morality of the Church embossing lol: o])! There was now a separation of church and Gesetz.und a reconnaissance and a sexual revolution and a digital globalization.

All wrong!

One must present day morality does not call into question not only in the science otherwise one is equal to the devil or a monster or no idea ... Actually, everyone says he is morally and the complete opposite is therefore morality is something not worth and actually only there can thus defend their other absurdities. (My opinion)


The law allowed the but and also make it and the philosophy fortiori.

Rationality is not a sufficient condition for moral action. Rational considerations a person can be quite tempted to act immorally.

Science is rational.

what a sexmoral do you mean? socially "prescribed"?

The formulation is completely confused. Can you formulate sufficiently understood or you have not only given up trying to do homework yourself?

Date: 2019-05-01 Views: 0

Related articles



Copyright (C) 2019 m3tch.com, All Rights Reserved.

M3tch all rights reserved.

processed in 2.022 (s). 10 q(s)