Curious Wonder web notes

Instead of imagining humans evolving morality, like fingers. Imagine the concept of morality as the best methods for keeping [high] civility [and well being] within large groups, and evolution forcing humans to adapt a sense of morality so as to better organize ourselves. Take for example, flight. There's the concept of flight and there's the evolution of flight. In order for something to be able to fly, animal or otherwise, it needs to be light weight, aerodynamic and be able to catch air so as to fall more slowly or get lift. Evolution needn't have evolved flight in animals for the concept of flight (or aerodynamics) to exist as a natural phenomenon. Evolution can however adapt certain animals to take advantage of this phenomenon to improve the survival chances of a species.   Humans may have evolved a sense of morality; evolution's best efforts at allowing us to grasp the better and worse methods at organizing large groups so as to allow individuals to prosper and ...

Should/ought statements don't inform on the nature of morality, that is they don't tell us what is or isn't moral. Rather, should/ought statements are made from what we already believe to be moral and it is this morality that I propose we can conclude objectively. (claim, needs examples) Science is at its most useful when it can reliably predict/discover the nature of reality. If we accept this aspect of science to be accurate then we can conclude that fields of study like history, economics, psychology and meteorology can be considered scientific so long as they can predict/discover the past, present and future nature of reality they aim to explain with useful amounts of reliability. That these fields don't follow the scientific method doesn't invalidate them as scientific, it merely means that the scientific method is an incomplete method for explaining reality. (demonstrate the predictability of ethics. Must be rigorous enough to match the usefulness of other ...