Is science incompatible with religion?

[Chiki]

Problem is, it just borders on "it's likely that they exist", and not "they have been verified, experimented and observed. I can state that they exist". Sure, the same can be said about dinosaur poop (we have never seen, but we can assume it existed), but we know dinosaurs existed and that they had physiological needs, whereas we have no example of aliens ever existing. As for your argument, it is equally possible for there to be planets where life is viable, but no intelligent species have developped beyond the most basic evolutionary states (this is also basic logic). It's one of the answers for the Fermi paradox, by the way, which admitedly poses a problem for aliens (if the term "paradox" isn't an indicative already), as stated:

There's still no clear answer to the Fermi paradox so far. So one can only assume the existance of aliens is merely conjecture based on probabilities. Yet it's a scientific issue. Why? From what you told me about science and Occam's Razor, science should use the latter to dismiss aliens completely.

The difference between aliens and unicorns is that it follows from scientific theories that aliens very likely do exist. The existence of invisible pink unicorns does not follow from any scientific theory.

Whether or not there are aliens has no bearing on the question: "Is science incompatible with religion?"

Edited July 14, 2015 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

Just a question, as IIRC PW is interested in astrology. How does science deal with the claim that aliens exist? How is it more probable than, say, a being that lives outside of science's reach? I can understand that it is probable that, if there are planets like ours somewhere, life could've evolved just like on Earth, but that's a bold claim anyway. Many theories are made about why aliens haven't made contact with us, each theory relying in mere speculation with no evidence to prove their claim (because it is impossible for our current science to study aliens, obviously). So how are they even scientifically important?

Another question that might border on stupidity, but ok: If you think something is right because it has, let's say, 80 or 90% chances of being true, does that not imply you need to believe (or have faith on) it to be true, since it has a chance of being false? You can't state for certain that you're right. The space between certainty and doubt is filled with belief. And since we can't know everything with absolute certainty, I dare say belief plays an important role in our ability to know.

astronomy, not astrology. astrology is a bullshit pseudo-science that would have you believe the positions of the stars in the sky have anything to tell us about ourselves. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was an honest mistake. :p

astronomy means "law/culture of the stars," and astrology "study/account of the stars." so the bastards took the more proper word, but it doesn't really matter.

i've already covered this topic several times, as well as dondon.

the existence of aliens isn't backed up by science. there's no data that suggests with certainty that there is life on other worlds. all discussion on this subject is speculative.

It is extremely, extremely, extremely likely that aliens exist since the universe is so large and there are more stars (by extension, I think, planets too) in the universe than there are specks of sand in the world (is this right?).

^see? this is the speculative part. there's no evidence that suggests aliens do exist, so even if this were true, there's still no scientific basis for believing in aliens.

it's more within the realm of logic. personally, i subscribe to the same idea, but i don't have a scientific basis for doing so--if someone asks for proof i would have nothing to show them. i'd only be able to convey the logic behind the idea.

that's right, on both counts (more planets than stars and more stars than sand on all beaches on earth).

Edited July 14, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Rapier]

Whether or not there are aliens has no bearing on the question: "Is science incompatible with religion?"

It kind of does, because we're speaking about the nature of science. As PW says, there's no scientific basis for believing in aliens. But aliens are somehow relevant to science. Why? Is this not a direct contradiction to science's nature? If there is no scientific basis, then I dare say believing in aliens is, as it denotes, a mere belief or faith... Which also poses a problem for PW's position, because if aliens are a scientifically acceptable subject, but their existance is merely justified through belief and/or faith, then science relies on belief and/or faith sometimes.

astronomy, not astrology. astrology is a bullshit pseudo-science that would have you believe the positions of the stars in the sky have anything to tell us about ourselves. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was an honest mistake. :p

astronomy means "law/culture of the stars," and astrology "study/account of the stars." so the bastards took the more proper word, but it doesn't really matter.

Oh well, sorry! Since I use the -logy term for most study of sciences, I've made a mistake from habit. I know it's offensive to astronomers (or studious of astronomy), but it was a honest mistake, my bad.

personally, i subscribe to the same idea, but i don't have a scientific basis for doing so--if someone asks for proof i would have nothing to show them. i'd only be able to convey the logic behind the idea.

I personally prefer to stay in the fence when there are so many possibilities and plausible yet unbacked answers for a problem, wait for more evidence and play the underdog devil's advocate. I'm like, "maybe aliens exist, maybe they don't, I don't know and I can't know" right now. I approach discussions like the original Phoenix Wright and always get guilty verdicts. =P

Edited July 14, 2015 by Rapier

[Phoenix Wright]

It kind of does, because we're speaking about the nature of science. As PW says, there's no scientific basis for believing in aliens. But aliens are somehow relevant to science. Why? Is this not a direct contradiction to science's nature? If there is no scientific basis, then I dare say believing in aliens is, as it denotes, a mere belief or faith... Which also poses a problem for PW's position, because if aliens are a scientifically acceptable subject, but their existance is merely justified through belief and/or faith, then science relies on belief and/or faith sometimes.

relevant to science in that we're looking for life. looking for something never implies we're certain we'll find something.

aliens are a "scientifically acceptable subject" because we are here. we are people born from the universe itself. the actual difference (i'm not sure what scientific theories olwen is referring to) between the two, aliens and the supernatural, is that it's assumed extraterrestrial life is much like us--beings born from the universe itself. by definition that which is supernatural exists despite the universe; we exist because the universe exists. the supernatural can't be studied, reality can be studied. i think your misconception lies in thinking that aliens are a supernatural concept?

Oh well, sorry! Since I use the -logy term for most study of sciences, I've made a mistake from habit. I know it's offensive to astronomers (or studious of astronomy), but it was a honest mistake, my bad.

it's ok. :) it'd be much more offensive if you believed in astrology. :p

I personally prefer to stay in the fence when there are so many possibilities and plausible yet unbacked answers for a problem, wait for more evidence and play the underdog devil's advocate. I'm like, "maybe aliens exist, maybe they don't, I don't know and I can't know" right now. I approach discussions like the original Phoenix Wright and always get guilty verdicts. =P

for me, it's impossible to stay on the fence on something. i personally identify as purely agnostic because i don't like the baggage associated with "atheist." however, agnosticism is only concerned if a thing is known/unknown (or even can be known), i am still atheistic--i concede that there may or may not be gods, but i don't believe in any of them regardless. this is due to logical arguments that you can find anywhere (olwen has some pretty good posts on the subject). likewise with extraterrestrials, i am agnostic, and so i do understand that their existence is unknown. but, if on a whim you asked me if they existed, i'd answer yes--again due to logic (reasons outlined by my own posts).

these beliefs have almost nothing to do with science, though. it is purely in the field of logic. the premises for my thinking aliens exist are scientifically verifiable. that's important if i want a sound conclusion. but the question "do aliens exist" has no answer in science. well, kind of. current observations would suggest they don't exist. but at the same time, our sample size is not big enough to draw a statistically sound conclusion.

i'd argue that the original phoenix wright does the opposite of what you say--he believes absolutely that his clients are innocent. it even comes back to bite him in some of the games!

Like I said, "faith" should not be confused with "blindly believing in something without logic". And I can tell you why my faith in God is not like that if you wish.

i missed this. i think at this point, i have made clear what i think the definition of faith is. sooner or later you'll have replied.

in any case, i'd like to take you up on that offer.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

No, the belief in the existence of aliens isn't justified by faith alone; it's justified by probability and what science tells us.

The belief in the existence of God is justified by faith alone and nothing else since there is no scientific basis for it.

[Snowy_One]

No, the belief in the existence of aliens isn't justified by faith alone; it's justified by probability and what science tells us.

The belief in the existence of God is justified by faith alone and nothing else since there is no scientific basis for it.

But there is also no evidence in the slightest that aliens do actually exist. Sure, there are first-hand accounts of aliens existing, but are you going to claim that those are valid while someone claiming a vision from God or performing an exorcism/miracle is then invalid?

Science may tell us that it is possible that aliens exist, but that does not mean that they do. After all, there are many things that are considered 'possible' by science that either have not been proven or did not happen.

[Chiki]

But there is also no evidence in the slightest that aliens do actually exist. Sure, there are first-hand accounts of aliens existing, but are you going to claim that those are valid while someone claiming a vision from God or performing an exorcism/miracle is then invalid?

Science may tell us that it is possible that aliens exist, but that does not mean that they do. After all, there are many things that are considered 'possible' by science that either have not been proven or did not happen.

I never said that aliens exist. I said it's very likely that they do.

[-Cynthia-]

I think something vague like 'aliens may exist in the universe somewhere' is pretty different from say, the Christian God. The latter has a lot of specifics about what God is and what he wants and how you should act to receive his favor and includes an account of the Earth that contradicts science in many ways.

Edited July 15, 2015 by -Cynthia-

[eclipse]

Sorry Phoenix Wright, my dishes will not wash themselves, and SF is being super-finicky.

Many "simple" things can be explained in great, technical detail, but it's not necessary to know every single intimate detail about it. That's why the baking soda volcano as an elementary experiment is possible, without going into the complexities of the reaction. Most people aren't interested in the nitty-gritty details of such things, and the humans way back when used their religion to explain things like the rising and setting of the sun.

Unfortunately, shit science can still be passed around, which is why the "vaccines cause autism" nonsense is still going strong.

Imagine if I asked you "which mode of transporting stuff is better, a truck or a boat?" It doesn't matter what you answer, because they're utilized for different things. If I want to haul my stuff from California to Nevada, I'd choose a truck. If I had to haul my stuff from California to Hawaii, I'd choose a boat. Furthermore, answering one or the other doesn't imply that the option you didn't choose is somehow inferior, nor should you suffer any cognitive dissonance if you believe that both are perfectly good means of transporting stuff. I see science for things we can observe and measure, and religion for those things we can't (or haven't figured out yet).

Lastly, I agree with "no scientific basis to believe in religion". However, I don't have enough faith in humanity and science to discount religion, which is why I'm willing to accept both science and religion, even if they are incompatible by definition.

first of all, phoenix wright agrees with what i say.

second of all, it's impossible to speculate about why people think that religion is compatible with science without making a statement about the nature of their understanding of religion and science.

And so do I.

However, both Phoenix Wright and I have discussed the BELIEF itself, not the qualities of the people that have the belief. That's the difference.

can everyone see why it's frustrating when users pop up to give their two cents, when in actuality the point has already been discussed ad nauseam? if one has no desire to participate in the discussion, what good is a post? especially if the point's already been made?

I encourage it, as long as it's relevant to the topic and adheres to the Code of Conduct/Serious Discussion sticky. It may seem tedious TO YOU, but you are not obligated to answer it.

So if you ever decide to live your life based on specific things you find out in science, it seems to me that there's always going to be that fear that everything you know is someday going to turn out to be all wrong. Therefore, if you decide to live your life based on scientific fact anyways...aren't you kind of putting faith in the fact that it's not going to let you down? Aren't you kind of "putting faith" in the fact that whatever principles you apply aren't just going to turn out to be bupkiss 20 years later?

Er. . .what?

Science provides information. It doesn't mean you have to live your life solely based on that single source of information.

when my reality is challenged, i embrace it.

I'm part of a religion, and I embrace this, too. . .as long as the change isn't something that'll screw me/my family over.

(and by that, I mean physically affect me/my family's well-being. If science shows that parts of my religion are ass-backwards, I'll evaluate it, rather than reject it outright.)

it's ok. :) it'd be much more offensive if you believed in astrology. :p

I believe in astrology. . .

. . .as a writing exercise. Hell, if that writing competition comes back around to my turn, I might incorporate some of the principles in writing a believable astrological forecast.

[Chiki]

Imagine if I asked you "which mode of transporting stuff is better, a truck or a boat?" It doesn't matter what you answer, because they're utilized for different things. If I want to haul my stuff from California to Nevada, I'd choose a truck. If I had to haul my stuff from California to Hawaii, I'd choose a boat. Furthermore, answering one or the other doesn't imply that the option you didn't choose is somehow inferior, nor should you suffer any cognitive dissonance if you believe that both are perfectly good means of transporting stuff. I see science for things we can observe and measure, and religion for those things we can't (or haven't figured out yet).

There's no reason to believe that we need religion for those things we can't observe.

[Deviddo]

I don't personally think Science and Religion are compatible, the basic idea of each is that they both attempt to explain the world through entirely different methods. One through the idea of a supernatural being(s), the other through ideas and theories about the universe as a whole.

Even if they were both compatible at one point, they probably split because they were incompatible. I won't get into my personal ideas about either science or religion but this is what I came to quite some time ago.

(My first few sentences were more or less a shortening of the first post, I realized, sorry about that.)

[Fly or Die]

Well, I think we can establish that there's no scientific backing to most religious beliefs (right? ... unless I missed something), but that doesn't necessarily make religion unnecessary or incompatible, in general.

You can argue that there's no rational (as in logical) justification for being religious, which would amount to saying that there's no scientific justification for religion. But there's also no rational justification for believing in the Loch Ness monster, or in the existance of unicorns. Is science "incompatible" with those things?

I interpret incompatible in the OP to mean "in direct conflict," which I don't think science and religion are. Religion provides guidelines, moral standards, and worldviews. It has it's place in society. Science tells us a little about how the physical universe works.

After all, unicorns could exist, we just have no reason to believe they do. Doesn't mean you need to go around bashing every unicorn-believer.

[dondon151]

I interpret incompatible in the OP to mean "in direct conflict," which I don't think science and religion are. Religion provides guidelines, moral standards, and worldviews. It has it's place in society. Science tells us a little about how the physical universe works.

of course they are in direct conflict. firstly, most religions make assertions about the physical world, such as creation, resurrection, and miracles. secondly, i wish people would stop acting as if science and its methods have no jurisdiction in the realm of ethics. we have plenty of evidence that religious exhortations against or for actions such as contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and mistreatment of others is either complete nonsense or leads to impaired quality of life. ethics is a field where there exist outcomes that can be measured as a result of manipulation of a variable.

most important ethical revolutions in modern history (women's rights, abolition of slavery, decline of warfare) have little basis in religious ethics, and in fact most of the people who stood firmly opposed to these paradigm shifts were religious leaders. it's quite evident that religious ethical standards are inferior to secular ones. relative to the general population, the religious are overrepresented in prisons. what does that say about the efficacy of religion as an ethical standard?

Edited July 15, 2015 by dondon151

[Chiki]

Religion provides guidelines, moral standards, and worldviews.

We have to ask, are they good ones? The Bible has stuff like this:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

If anything, religion seems to give us the wrong answer about what is moral in many regards like women's rights.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Chiki

[Dwalin2010]

We have to ask, are they good ones? The Bible has stuff like this:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

If anything, religion seems to give us the wrong answer about what is moral in many regards like women's rights.

The Old Testament is full of cruelty and injustices; theoretically the New Testament was needed just for that, to set things right; if science and religion contradict each other, then there is also no less contradiction between the 2 Testaments. Another example: they talk about animal sacrifices, burning their flesh, and this allegedly is "a smell that Our Lord likes" or something like that. Surely not something compatible with the concept of a merciful incarnation of Supreme Good that God incarnates. I think no moral religious person would consider the Old Testament as even a part of their moral guidelines in life.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Chiki]

The Old Testament is full of cruelty and injustices; theoretically the New Testament was needed just for that, to set things right; if science and religion contradict each other, then there is also no less contradiction between the 2 Testaments. Another example: they talk about animal sacrifices, burning their flesh, and this allegedly is "a smell that Our Lord likes" or something like that. Surely not something compatible with the concept of a merciful incarnation of Supreme Good that God incarnates. I think no moral religious person would consider the Old Testament as even a part of their moral guidelines in life.

That quote is from the New Testament.

[Dwalin2010]

That quote is from the New Testament.

That's new to me, so thanks for the information. However, I definitely disagree with this quote, hopefully it's just Timothy's personal opinion, not God's. But I must agree that this quote certainly doesn't contribute to religion from a moral point of view.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Fly or Die]

of course they are in direct conflict. firstly, most religions make assertions about the physical world, such as creation, resurrection, and miracles. secondly, i wish people would stop acting as if science and its methods have no jurisdiction in the realm of ethics. we have plenty of evidence that religious exhortations against or for actions such as contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and mistreatment of others is either complete nonsense or leads to impaired quality of life. ethics is a field where there exist outcomes that can be measured as a result of manipulation of a variable.

most important ethical revolutions in modern history (women's rights, abolition of slavery, decline of warfare) have little basis in religious ethics, and in fact most of the people who stood firmly opposed to these paradigm shifts were religious leaders. it's quite evident that religious ethical standards are inferior to secular ones. relative to the general population, the religious are overrepresented in prisons. what does that say about the efficacy of religion as an ethical standard?

I'm not defending things such as creation, ressurection, miracles, etc. Whether you believe in them is up to you -- as I said before, this is something like believing in unicorns.

When I talk about religious ethics, I'm referring to ethical guidlines generally, not specific examples of commands in the Old Testament (for that matter, I never even referenced Christianity specifically). Religious ethics teaches people constraint and rules, as people are not born with innate moral codes and society itself is somewhat uncaring (for lack of a better word).

I'm not saying every religious belief ever is great. Far from it (religious figures tend to be conservative). But in general, religion does serve a purpose. Your "secular ethical standards" are mostly derived historically from religious ethical beliefs. Religion gives people a base from which to derive morals, and a conservative force to balance people who are over-eager to change things (even if they're not always right)

Also, at the end of the day, science cannot give us ethics, because science (should be) objective, which ethics clearly is not.

[Chiki]

Also, at the end of the day, science cannot give us ethics, because science (should be) objective, which ethics clearly is not.

Is it really that clear? Ask anyone out there in the world who isn't a complete loon (or a philosopher): is it wrong to fly a plane into a kindergarten full of innocent children? I'm pretty sure everyone will say no.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Chiki

[Fly or Die]

Is it really that clear? Ask anyone out there in the world who isn't a complete loon (or a philosopher): is it wrong to fly a plane into a kindergarten full of innocent children? I'm pretty sure everyone will say no.

Please, take a situation which doesn't seem to be completely obvious. Ask everybody in the world whether abortion should be legalized.

I can even spin endless variations of your scenario to make it less black-and-white. Ex: Is it morally acceptable to fly a plane into a kindergarten of 20 innocent children to save the President of the United States?

[Dwalin2010]

Please, take a situation which doesn't seem to be completely obvious. Ask everybody in the world whether abortion should be legalized.

I can even spin endless variations of your scenario to make it less black-and-white. Ex: Is it morally acceptable to fly a plane into a kindergarten of 20 innocent children to save the President of the United States?

While I agree with your previous posts, I don't undestand whether you say that the abortion situation is obvious meaning that it "should" or "shouldn't" be legalized (I personally consider it murder since not even the most convinced abortion supporters would want to be in the aborted baby's place)? And, how does saving a president make the massacre of children more morally acceptable or less black-and-white?

Edited July 15, 2015 by Dwalin2010

[Borz]

Is it really that clear? Ask anyone out there in the world who isn't a complete loon (or a philosopher): is it wrong to fly a plane into a kindergarten full of innocent children? I'm pretty sure everyone will say no.

On what objective fact is "Flying a plane into a kindergarten full of innocent children is wrong." based on? I would love to know, because determining if there is an objective morality is very important. In fact, I might make a topic about it.(if it does not exist already)

Also, are you not appealing to the majority?

Edited July 15, 2015 by Borz

[Phoenix Wright]

Sorry Phoenix Wright, my dishes will not wash themselves, and SF is being super-finicky.

Many "simple" things can be explained in great, technical detail, but it's not necessary to know every single intimate detail about it. That's why the baking soda volcano as an elementary experiment is possible, without going into the complexities of the reaction.

i realize this, but the purpose of those experiments include conveying the complexity of the problem, not just showing how cool science can look. they're meant to make an already curious mind more curious. showing that ketchup is a non-newtonian fluid is cool, but simply showcasing science isn't useful if the audence doesn't attempt to learn more. the message, "this is how cool science is, now you go do it," is what's intended. in other words, the attempt at making people care about the details is the actual goal. you say:

Unfortunately, shit science can still be passed around, which is why the "vaccines cause autism" nonsense is still going strong.

which is correct. this is due to our failure in accomplishing the goal. most people understand that vaccines are (largely) a good thing, but very few can explain why they're good. so when "new information" comes around saying they're actually bad and cause your kids to catch autism, well then that's just the way it is, ain't it?! we knew one thing now we know another.

this shows a person's flimsy (at best) comprehension of science. misinformation spreads because people generally don't get what science does or how the very process of science works. it's a failure on our education system.

i think it's fair to expect people to know how certain things work, but more than that, it's fair to expect people to want to know how the things around them work. what good is being human if one isn't going to exercise the most obvious advantage over all other life on earth: the brain?

Imagine if I asked you "which mode of transporting stuff is better, a truck or a boat?" It doesn't matter what you answer, because they're utilized for different things. If I want to haul my stuff from California to Nevada, I'd choose a truck. If I had to haul my stuff from California to Hawaii, I'd choose a boat. Furthermore, answering one or the other doesn't imply that the option you didn't choose is somehow inferior, nor should you suffer any cognitive dissonance if you believe that both are perfectly good means of transporting stuff. I see science for things we can observe and measure, and religion for those things we can't (or haven't figured out yet).

attempting to understand things we can't measure and observe is fruitless. what is the basis for any answer given. why trust one source over another?

Lastly, I agree with "no scientific basis to believe in religion". However, I don't have enough faith in humanity and science to discount religion, which is why I'm willing to accept both science and religion, even if they are incompatible by definition.

i'm not so sure that faith should actually be important when making decisions on what one should accept as fact...

I encourage it, as long as it's relevant to the topic and adheres to the Code of Conduct/Serious Discussion sticky. It may seem tedious TO YOU, but you are not obligated to answer it.

the topic's not that long. there's no point in posting if the (same!) question's already been asked and answered well enough to merit no further posts about it.

I'm part of a religion, and I embrace this, too. . .as long as the change isn't something that'll screw me/my family over.

i'm only talking about scientific discoveries. like, if we found out that the universe is beginning to slow down in its acceleration, this would cause cosmologists to be very confused on the nature of the dark energy--something that's already mysterious.

I believe in astrology. . .

. . .as a writing exercise. Hell, if that writing competition comes back around to my turn, I might incorporate some of the principles in writing a believable astrological forecast.

it could be a good exercise for creative writing, i'll agree. haha :p

[Chiki]

Please, take a situation which doesn't seem to be completely obvious. Ask everybody in the world whether abortion should be legalized.

I can even spin endless variations of your scenario to make it less black-and-white. Ex: Is it morally acceptable to fly a plane into a kindergarten of 20 innocent children to save the President of the United States?

Doesn't matter if there are situations which aren't completely obvious. All I was doing was challenging the claim that ethics is obviously subjective, and it is not obviously subjective since there are infinitely many cases in which ethics is uncontroversial.

On what objective fact is "Flying a plane into a kindergarten full of innocent children is wrong." based on? I would love to know, because determining if there is an objective morality is very important. In fact, I might make a topic about it.(if it does not exist already)

Also, are you not appealing to the majority?

It's based on common sense intuitions.

Hey, bolded part is actually a pretty great question that made me think for a while. I never thought of that. It sure seems like relying on common sense intuitions is appealing to the majority. But I think common sense intuitions aren't valid simply because the majority of people have them. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuition/

We do have good reasons to trust them, as science shows:

Consider recent research on “intuitions” in naturalistic decision making (Klein 1998). Such research has shown that agents with sufficient experience in a given domain (e.g., neonatal nursing, fire-fighting, or chess) make decisions on the basis of a cognitive process other than conscious considerations of various options and the weighing of evidence and utilities. Such expert “intuitions” that some infant suffers from sepsis, that a fire will take a certain course, or that a certain chess move is a good one, appear immediately in consciousness.

We can consider all humans as experts on basic morality (like flying a plane into a kindergarten) and on things like the existence of the external world, so we have good reason to trust them.

[Rapier]

On what objective fact is "Flying a plane into a kindergarten full of innocent children is wrong." based on? I would love to know, because determining if there is an objective morality is very important. In fact, I might make a topic about it.(if it does not exist already)

Also, are you not appealing to the majority?

If murder, rape, theft, flying a plane into a kindergarten etc. are to be considered morally right, society would be driven into chaos. Those are behaviors that are detrimental to the continuinity and well being of society overall, so they MUST be disencouraged and prevented. This is why ethics need to be objective, at least to a certain point (because defining more advanced ethics is hard). If we can't determine (at least the most basic behaviors, like the ones stated before) as right or wrong, we're done for.

There's one about it already, but it's old. I argued that morals are objective (and I still believe to be right, to a certain degree), Chiki argued for moral subjectivism (I admit I can't find a refutation for moral error theory), and Makaze argued for moral relativism (which is a ridiculous branch, if you ask me).