How can we use science to arrive at moral conclusions?

>>9014672
We can't. Moral principles are discovered prior to empirical investigation. Science, however, can help us make wiser decisions by helping us dispel some of our ignorance about the world.

>>9014672
By choosing a system of ethics for example deontology and creating responses for every possible situation based on means of achieving desired moral decision

>>9014672
Looking at previous situations, determining if the outcome of the decisions were good or bad (or neutral) and using this previous experience to make decisions in similar situations that arise.

>>9014672
why are jews so goblin like.

>>9014720
Because oxygen is free

we need some basic criteria such as 'suffering is bad' which is a profound thing for philosophers but is actually just common sense for the rest of us. Then we need to quantify suffering in terms of neuroscience, what exactly in the brain constitutes suffering. Then we can work to minimize that for all people and animals, proportional to how vivid experience they have (also based from our future knowledge of neuroscience)
So we almost can, but we have to use common sense

>>9014688
So you used science as an intermediary to arrive at a moral conclusion which isn't what OP asked. How does science determine what you believe what is good, bad, or neutral?

>>9015071
Why is suffering bad?

>>9015155
what do you mean by 'why'?
what do you mean by 'is'?
what do you mean by 'suffering'?
what do you mean by 'bad'?

My take: you cannot use science to arrive at moral conclusions, you can use science to inform your moral conclusions

>>9015180
what do you mean by "what"?
what do you mean by "do"?
what do you mean by "you"?
what do you mean by "mean"?
what do you mean by "by"?

no, you need some kind of philosophical basis for morality to begin with, though science is helpful in determining how best to bend the material world to this goal

>>9015210
2nd'd

You can't. Science is the study of natural phenomena, it is inherently detached from morality. Even engineering, which is the application of science to technology, cannot be moral or immoral.

Only humans can have morality, and that's why we have religion, especially Christianity. Turn the other cheek, better be poor than lose your soul, work to sustain yourself, be fruitful and multiply and let the holy spirit do the rest.

Trying to morph science and morality resulted in the greatest man-made tragedies of the 20th century.

>>9015180
>>9015223
Don't be butthurt. It's a serious question.

Suffering is clearly not always bad. It's considered a good thing to suffer in many cases. For example, many people suffer when losing weight. People go out of their way to suffer through excercise. People go looking for extreme suffering through extreme sports or extreme fetishes. Suffering is not objectively bad clearly.