Is it normal to only trust a morality if it's science?

It's bullshit that any morality is not science, and that a scientific morality is troublesome, and that it's still doing the wrong thing, it's not, it's to be applied only as scientific and nothing else and therefore fuck the posh people with their argument that I did the wrong thing, I question my morality and their morality, though posh is what I am, it's untrue if it's not science. E.g. I don't hit a child with a yardstick and I use human and animal wellbeing, I flourish, I thrive, therefore I'm doing the right thing, yet it's much more specific than that aesthetic or philosophical morality bullshit. The reality is Miller Place is a danger to morals and a danger to science, everyone there is a Christian except for me, fuck them, anything Christian isn't any fun! I'm not an atheist, I have beliefs, but I think your Christian beliefs are wrong. Therefore these people are a danger to science, and even a danger to my esoteric, historical and non-physical science, such as Ancient Aliens and my Stonecutting, the whole facility is a danger to those sciences. What they really want is a punch in the lip! I don't throw battery acid at women or beat them with lengths of steel cable if they refuse to wear a veil, and I don't murder my daughter out of shame when she has been raped (and I don't have a daughter), specific as this is it implies you shouldn't kill people at all. Scientific morality is anti-religious, not religious, it argues that most religious morality is wrong. It's based on morality from primatologists and evolutionary biologists. This is where science gets wonderful, not when it's physics but when it's this biology and primatology. I therefore never cause needless human suffering, compulsory veiling is a bad idea, and I have empathy and compassion, I don't chop my son's head off when it's the most compassionate thing to do whenever he's gay, implying I shouldn't kill gay men (I don't have a son, woohoo!). So I restudied several times this scientific morality and is very simple but only works if I get it exact, precise, without guesswork, without assumptions, but based on fact, it's true. Considering that even rocks have souls I would never cause suffering to rocks, even a chair and wood have souls and therefore are to be looked after and treated right, and gulls have the souls of dead sailors, it's true, so I would never cause death or suffering to a seagull. But superstition and souls isn't science but the science applies whether it's physical or not, I would never add cholera to the water, and never believe in the evil eye so that when bad things happen I can immediately blame my neighbours. And I would never do suicide bombing, which is what this science implies with no explicit reference to suicide bombing. I never subject children to pain and violence & public humiliation as a way of encouraging healthy emotional development and good behaviour. This behaviour (the violence mentioned etc) is bad for everyone and therefore humiliating text messages is wrong. The truth is science has the perfect solution in our society and has all the answers, exposing sexual images to children is scientifically the wrong thing to do and it's even more wrong to expose them to images of Muslim women covering their heads with veils. Therefore if you're Muslim you're doing the wrong thing. Thus there's several if not many moral rules in science, about 20 of them, and if not done precisely or specifically can be misconstrued ending up in doing the wrong thing, and I'm angry because Miller Place twists my morals fucking with them, and I feel wrong if it's not science, and any suffering needlessly of humans is wrong and people are too stupid to realise that, too stupid to understand that this scientific morality brings one to the morally evolved, and want a punch in the lip for even suggesting that scientific morality is bad, though I will never punch them because it's needless human suffering, I disdain them and question the whole system of my facility which is wrong, out of order and the whole system is wrong, is that normal?

Voting Results
75% Normal
Based on 4 votes (3 yes)
Feeling Suicidal?
We couldn't help but notice that you might be asking about things related to suicide...
If that's not the case, please ignore this message.
But, if that is the case, please, please, please call this hotline and talk to someone about it. Or, visit one of these websites and get some help.
Unfortunately IIN isn't the best place for you to be asking about this. Check out the above websites or call one of the hotlines instead. They can help. Really. We know what we're talking about. Call. Do it. Please.
Remember that everything gets better with time.
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 4 )
  • chrysocolla

    good/bad is a human concept

    no such thing as morals in the natural world, just a bunch of dumbasses killing n eating stuff

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Hansberger

      Try doing bad to a cat and it will bite you, therefore bad is symbolic, as good is symbolic, and is fought with something else that feels bad to you. Poking me gets a kick in the arse, and doing good is rewardable with more good, so bad begets bad (known as a punishment) and good begets good. You give me advice, and now I'm giving you advice, perfectly normal!

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • TS

    When does Mother Horse Eyes come back?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Hansberger

      It never comes back, my scientific morality means I never do any harm ever, therefore it's right for me to break all rules including on the internet and only follow a scientific morality.

      Comment Hidden ( show )