How has ‘what is moral’ come to be scientifically settled?
Different cultures across the world have different morals. Yet for this statement to be true, there must be an agreed scientific consensus on a quantitative metric and its impact on a fundamentally unscientific det of cultural rules.
The appeal to scientific authority in this statement undermines a good moral argument to be made about inequity and excessive individual rights to property.
This is just a call to some pop-science, at best, meant to engage the rage. It has no better scientific basis than trickle down economics does.
Do not put words in my mouth. I said nothing of scientific morality.
I said that different people work for different reasons. Sane people work to achieve the necessities of life, providing a means to support themselves and their families. Sane people, with healthy relationships and interests, value things other than work. Once you have enough to live in luxury for a dozen lifetimes, you are no longer pursuing things like friends, family, hobbies, etc. You are instead working primarily because you are a psychopath who gets off on lording power over others. The only thing that billions in wealth gets you is power and influence over others. That’s literally its only utility.
There are no moral billionaires. If you seek that level of wealth, there is something fundamentally broken in your soul. You need to be involuntarily committed to an insane asylum, as you are pathologically addicted to money and power.
Claiming a scientific authority that doesn’t exist and someone calling you on it, isn’t putting words in your mouth. Its a reaction to an unjustified claim to authority, that undermines that authority when it is actually appropriate.
It also undermines your own argument. Its good to see you’re reply shifted position.
