:clap: The Boy Owen got there first.

[World's End Stella]

No. There is no scientific basis to not enslaving black people or sending 6 year-olds down mines or up chimneys. Indeed, there were excellent livings to be made at it as I understand. They are things we chose to stop doing based on a set of ideas. Science had fùck all to do with it.

You are getting the fact that we have derived what we perceive to be happy outcomes (for us) from no longer doing these things mixed up with some sort of scientific proof of our superiority, which is nonsense. The Romans used to enslave and kill millions and indulge in games that involved torture and bloodshed. Was the fact that they dominated the ancient world and were vastly technologically superior to their contemporaries therefore validate the extremely fùcked up nature of their society?

I'm pretty sure you could come up with a scientific basis for outlawing slavery and sending 6 year olds down the mines. Or at least I wouldn't write off the possibility.

I would imagine you would attempt to measure an individual's contribution to society with respect to the number of hours worked over the course of their lifetime, the contribution that they might make if given equal opportunities in society etc etc. You could then measure the life expectancy of the average person with and without slavery and child labour and a use a fairly basic probability theorem to determine the contributions the slaves and children would have made. This would be offset against the advantages of cheaper labour amongst other things.

No idea what the conclusion would be but I'm sure this could be measured scientifically.

[redgunamo]

I'm pretty sure you could come up with a scientific basis for outlawing slavery and sending 6 year olds down the mines. Or at least I wouldn't write off the possibility.

I would imagine you would attempt to measure an individual's contribution to society with respect to the number of hours worked over the course of their lifetime, the contribution that they might make if given equal opportunities in society etc etc. You could then measure the life expectancy of the average person with and without slavery and child labour and a use a fairly basic probability theorem to determine the contributions the slaves and children would have made. This would be offset against the advantages of cheaper labour amongst other things.

No idea what the conclusion would be but I'm sure this could be measured scientifically.

Such number-crunching isn't science though surely? The results and conclusions always depend upon who is paying for them.

[Burney]

I'm pretty sure you could come up with a scientific basis for outlawing slavery and sending 6 year olds down the mines. Or at least I wouldn't write off the possibility.

I would imagine you would attempt to measure an individual's contribution to society with respect to the number of hours worked over the course of their lifetime, the contribution that they might make if given equal opportunities in society etc etc. You could then measure the life expectancy of the average person with and without slavery and child labour and a use a fairly basic probability theorem to determine the contributions the slaves and children would have made. This would be offset against the advantages of cheaper labour amongst other things.

No idea what the conclusion would be but I'm sure this could be measured scientifically.

I've no doubt such a cost-benefit analysis could justify lots of horrid things.

[World's End Stella]

I've no doubt such a cost-benefit analysis could justify lots of horrid things.

That's deflection. The point is that Monty is actually correct in that you can find a scientific basis for pretty much everything if you look hard enough.

Although quite why that is relevant to anything I have now forgotten.

F*ck me, what was this thread about in the first place?

[Burney]

That's deflection. The point is that Monty is actually correct in that you can find a scientific basis for pretty much everything if you look hard enough.

Although quite why that is relevant to anything I have now forgotten.

F*ck me, what was this thread about in the first place?

It's not deflection. Such a purely utilitarian analysis would, for instance, almost certainly conclude that disabled children would be best off being euthanised. After all, they will only ever be a drain and never contribute. Do we do that? Of course not. Why? Because our belief system (which, whether m likes it or not, is still based on Judaeo-Christian lines) tells us that to do so would be abhorrent.

However, my only point is that, while I am intensely glad that that is how we do things, trying to claim the reasoning behind it is scientific is nonsense.

[World's End Stella]

It's not deflection. Such a purely utilitarian analysis would, for instance, almost certainly conclude that disabled children would be best off being euthanised. After all, they will only ever be a drain and never contribute. Do we do that? Of course not. Why? Because our belief system (which, whether m likes it or not, is still based on Judaeo-Christian lines) tells us that to do so would be abhorrent.

However, my only point is that, while I am intensely glad that that is how we do things, trying to claim the reasoning behind it is scientific is nonsense.

Believe it or not, I'm sure you could come up with a measurable approach to proving that society would be better off without euthanasia.

However I agree with your second point. The way society has evolved is largely organic, without any pre-thought whatsoever. The fact that so much of it is scientifically justifiable is because of the number of variations and iterations that have occurred over time. We may not have planned it, but we do eventually get things right, us humans.

[Ash]

That's deflection. The point is that Monty is actually correct in that you can find a scientific basis for pretty much everything if you look hard enough.

Although quite why that is relevant to anything I have now forgotten.

F*ck me, what was this thread about in the first place?

This substantial detour came from comments that we should start to defend ourselves from Islamist terrorism by defending our social values, which implies a discussion of what those values are and why they are worth defending. This happened. wd AWIMB

[Ash]

I'm pretty sure you could come up with a scientific basis for outlawing slavery and sending 6 year olds down the mines. Or at least I wouldn't write off the possibility.

Here's a scientific fact: Small children were useful down mines because they fitted better and required less food to reproduce their labour. See also: chimneys.

[redgunamo]

Here's a scientific fact: Small children were useful down mines because they fitted better and required less food to reproduce their labour. See also: chimneys.

Sort of like whippets? Cheaper to keep and feed and more manageable than greyhounds?

[Ash]

Sort of like whippets? Cheaper to keep and feed and more manageable than greyhounds?

Possibly. In some coal mines the kids' job was to open and close doors to manage the ventilation. Can whippets be trained to do that? Not sure how well they could handle a chimbley brush though. Opposable thumbs are scientifically superior.