Has science failed to recognize morality as lifesaving?

[coffeesippin]

What has caused STIs to reach epidemic and record levels in 2018?  Is it the water we drink?  The air we breathe?  Dirty toilet seats?

(CNN)Rates of syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia have climbed for the fourth consecutive year in the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Tuesday at the National STD Prevention Conference in Washington.

Last year, nearly 2.3 million US cases of these sexually transmitted diseases were diagnosed, according to preliminary data.

That's the highest number ever reported nationwide, breaking the record set in 2016 by more than 200,000 cases, according to the CDC.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/health/std-rates-united-states-2018-bn/index.html

      Or is it an abandonment of what old fashioned people call 'morality?'   What is morality?  Can morality be defined scientifically?  Can science lead the way to a higher morality if necessary?  

 

 

[iNow]

STDs are spread via sex. It’s right there in the name. You’re welcome.

Morality can be approached scientifically, specifically by seeking the maximum good for the highest number of sentient beings.

It’s not easy, but at least offers a foundation.

Harris does interesting writing on this. 

[koti]

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

What has caused STIs to reach epidemic and record levels in 2018?  Is it the water we drink?  The air we breathe?  Dirty toilet seats?

If its a sexually transmitted disease (like in the name) you don't get it through drinking water or breathing air.

[coffeesippin]

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

STDs are spread via sex. It’s right there in the name. You’re welcome.

Morality can be approached scientifically, specifically by seeking the maximum good for the highest number of sentient beings.

It’s not easy, but at least offers a foundation.

Harris does interesting writing on this. 

I got a chuckle for sure, iNow.  Thanks also for the rest of the post.

[Carrock]

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

What has caused STIs to reach epidemic and record levels in 2018?  Is it the water we drink?  The air we breathe?  Dirty toilet seats?

As you're referring to the U.S., a major reason is the success of the religious right in inhibiting access to sex education, safe sex info, treatment for STIs, contraception and abortion.

Maximising harm to those who do not adhere to their concept of morality is an aim of evangelicals etc.

[Raider5678]

8 minutes ago, Carrock said:

and abortion.

I fail to see how saying we shouldn't kill babies leads to the spread of STI's.

8 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Maximising harm to those who do not adhere to their concept of morality is an aim of evangelicals etc.

This is a complete misrepresentation of the aim of evangelicals. 

1. Not all evangelicals are the same.

2. This is not the goal of the overwhelming majority of evangelicals, let alone all of them.

3. Many evangelicals don't even agree on what morality is, let alone who's adhering to it.

8 minutes ago, Carrock said:

the success of the religious right in inhibiting access to sex education, safe sex info, treatment for STIs, contraception

From what I've seen the majority of the fight is aimed at trying to keep people from killing babies, and the idea that it's only the religious right is a flawed one. 

And while there are people who don't want people with STIs to be treated, don't want there to be safe sex info, and who oppose sex education, I'd say it's a completely different category then what the majority of them are fighting over, like abortion.

It reminds me of a joke where a question asks "Have you ever convicted of a murder, been convicted of a hit and run, been convicted of a rape, or been convicted of a parking ticket?"

One thing in the category, yes, the majority of people have done. Doesn't mean that all of those things are done equally. 

Abortion is where the vast majority of the fight is, and limiting access to Abortions is not causing the spread of STI's, it's not related.

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

What has caused STIs to reach epidemic and record levels in 2018?  Is it the water we drink?  The air we breathe?  Dirty toilet seats?

 

 

I'd imagine the lack of people practicing safe sex. 

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

Can morality be defined scientifically?

Morality cannot be defined scientifically.

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

Can science lead the way to a higher morality if necessary?  

No. Science deals with things you can measure. Morality can't be measured.

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

Or is it an abandonment of what old fashioned people call 'morality?'

People haven't abandoned "morality". They've changed their opinion of what it is.

Rape is still considered immoral.

Murder is still considered immoral.

Stealing is still considered immoral. Etc.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

30 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Morality cannot be defined scientifically.

But it can. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape

30 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No. Science deals with things you can measure. Morality can't be measured.

See above

30 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

And while there are people who don't want people with STIs to be treated, don't want there to be safe sex info, and who oppose sex education, I'd say it's a completely different category then what the majority of them are fighting over, like abortion.

I know you learn fast, but you’re young and obviously still ignorant of much of history. The right and evangelicals in particular have long fought against sex Ed in schools, arguing that abstinence is the only “moral” choice.

Unfortunately, following this approach proved to fail quite regularly.

 When our biological urges (that have evolved for millennia) overpower what our gym teachers taught us, youths have sex without having been properly educated on protection and hence STDs spread more easily and pregnancies ensue more frequently... thus making the abortion question even more relevant and difficult. 

Edited November 18, 2018 by iNow

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I have merged the replies in the duplicate threads into one. 

 

[Arete]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I fail to see how saying we shouldn't kill babies leads to the spread of STI's.

Abstinence only sexual education goes hand in hand with the pro life movement. It's virtually impossible to disentangle the two. 

The problem with this is that abstinence only sex education doesn't reduce the rate of premarital sex. What it does instead is leads to people having sex without the knowledge of how to prevent the spread of STI's. So, it not only fails at its intended purpose, it needlessly exposes people to preventable infectious diseases. 

In a similar vein, stricter abortion laws are not only correlated with higher abortion rates, but also an increased risk of death for women seeking illegal medical procedures. 

Legislating morality generally backfires. Approaching people with compassion, without judgement, and trying to minimize suffering tends to lead to a positive result for all. 

[mistermack]

8 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

What has caused STIs to reach epidemic and record levels in 2018?  Is it the water we drink?  The air we breathe?  Dirty toilet seats?

No, it's God's will.

What a bastard !     

[coffeesippin]

6 hours ago, Carrock said:

As you're referring to the U.S., a major reason is the success of the religious right in inhibiting access to sex education, safe sex info, treatment for STIs, contraception and abortion.

Maximising harm to those who do not adhere to their concept of morality is an aim of evangelicals etc.

The purpose of your response was made clear when you included access to abortion which has nothing to do with STIs unless you consider pregnancy a disease.  Safe sex access is found in almost any Greyhound station bathroom, many bar bathrooms, many schools, every drug store, and many or most modern parents will get condoms for their children.  Sex education can be found easily on the internet by almost any 10 year old.  You credit American right wing 'television evangelicals' with far more power and purpose than they have, as they're so concerned with giving approval to wars of empire and amassing personal fortunes they really don't have enough air time to be concerned with morality.  In Canada, what is considered 'sex education' begins in Elementary school, and here it seems to increase the problem because for the past 12 years it's been in the hands of those in favour of eliminating any idea of morality, resulting in a rate of Youth HIV that for the past several years has been on track to reach 1,000%+ increase in about 8 years, with over 500 new cases a year presently.   

7 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I fail to see how saying we shouldn't kill babies leads to the spread of STI's.

This is a complete misrepresentation of the aim of evangelicals. 

1. Not all evangelicals are the same.

Quote

And not all evangelicals are genuine, especially on television.

 

2. This is not the goal of the overwhelming majority of evangelicals, let alone all of them.

          

3. Many evangelicals don't even agree on what morality is, let alone who's adhering to it.

From what I've seen the majority of the fight is aimed at trying to keep people from killing babies, and the idea that it's only the religious right is a flawed one. 

And while there are people who don't want people with STIs to be treated, don't want there to be safe sex info, and who oppose sex education, I'd say it's a completely different category then what the majority of them are fighting over, like abortion.

It reminds me of a joke where a question asks "Have you ever convicted of a murder, been convicted of a hit and run, been convicted of a rape, or been convicted of a parking ticket?"

One thing in the category, yes, the majority of people have done. Doesn't mean that all of those things are done equally. 

Abortion is where the vast majority of the fight is, and limiting access to Abortions is not causing the spread of STI's, it's not related.

         Not related at all, except as moral issues.  

I'd imagine the lack of people practicing safe sex. 

          And almost no one does.

Morality cannot be defined scientifically.

No. Science deals with things you can measure. Morality can't be measured.

         Perhaps morality can be measured in the results from discontinuing the idea of morality.

People haven't abandoned "morality". They've changed their opinion of what it is.

Rape is still considered immoral.

Murder is still considered immoral.

         Then why is there so much of it, on personal levels, and on national levels with war?

Stealing is still considered immoral. Etc.

         Then why is there so much educated, white collar crime?

      This is my first time using the quote function, so if my response is messed up, it's messed up.  Here I go .. push the submit reply.

[Carrock]

11 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

The purpose of your response was made clear...

In your OP you asked rhetorical questions and now you say my post has an unstated clear purpose.

Any response to you can be met with "I only stated unreferenced 'facts' without attribution; your response attributes false purpose and reasoning to my posts."

 

I'll just mention one point from you.

 

Quote

Sex education can be found easily on the internet by almost any 10 year old.

So a child brought up to be ignorant about sex knows that it's good and/or moral to search for forbidden knowledge on the internet. They also know without being told how not to become victims of internet predators.

[coffeesippin]

4 minutes ago, Carrock said:

In your OP you asked rhetorical questions and now you say my post has an unstated clear purpose.

Any response to you can be met with "I only stated unreferenced 'facts' without attribution; your response attributes false purpose and reasoning to my posts."

 

I'll just mention one point from you.

 

So a child brought up to be ignorant about sex knows that it's good and/or moral to search for forbidden knowledge on the internet. They also know without being told how not to become victims of internet predators.

Almost any child has some notion of sex .. they hear what can be either soft or loud sounds in their parents'/parent's bedroom, with loud, short of breath sounds gasping and almost violent moaning perhaps the first association in the sex and violence combination so profitable for the entertainment industry and satisfying to the demented.)  Perhaps some or many older 'children' are internet predators as intent on finding easy sex as the adult aged people out for their own gratification.   What age IS a child these days with 12 year olds prostituting themselves in small towns in Canada for instance, you know, the Canada which advertises itself as an example for the world in so many virtuous ways? 

 I think you have the wrong picture of a normal 'religious' family.  Sex education is part of many religions, and in what many people call 'the moral literature' of those religions sex is honoured as a good and pleasurable thing with good purposes not limited to pregnancy.  The Song of Solomon in the bible is one example.  However, those religious texts also are clear on what they consider good and bad sex, and THAT is what some people consider error, the idea of good and bad, right and wrong that restricts their own desire for physical satisfaction at any cost.   

The science of statistics can reveal the results of different kinds of sexual activity, and those results can be linked that to the idea of what are good and bad ideas and behaviours, right and wrong.  Education as to wearing of condoms obviously breaks down with the reality that most people of any age don't use them beyond first or second representation of caution and intelligence.  Scientific literature suggest condoms fail 50% at preventing HIV anyway.  I haven't read the results of condom use for the many other diseases.     

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I fail to see how saying we shouldn't kill babies leads to the spread of STI's.

Because the people who advocate on seem to feel they should advocate the other.

If you can find a group that opposes abortion, but promotes the use of condoms then you have found a group that's either irreligious or rather rare.

[coffeesippin]

5 hours ago, Arete said:

Abstinence only sexual education goes hand in hand with the pro life movement. It's virtually impossible to disentangle the two. 

The problem with this is that abstinence only sex education doesn't reduce the rate of premarital sex. What it does instead is leads to people having sex without the knowledge of how to prevent the spread of STI's. So, it not only fails at its intended purpose, it needlessly exposes people to preventable infectious diseases. 

In a similar vein, stricter abortion laws are not only correlated with higher abortion rates, but also an increased risk of death for women seeking illegal medical procedures. 

Legislating morality generally backfires. Approaching people with compassion, without judgement, and trying to minimize suffering tends to lead to a positive result for all. 

"The problem with this is that abstinence only sex education doesn't reduce the rate of premarital sex. What it does instead is leads to people having sex without the knowledge of how to prevent the spread of STI's. So, it not only fails at its intended purpose, it needlessly exposes people to preventable infectious diseases."

        Links will most often of course lead to information substantiating the statement of the link's provider.  But there WILL be other links with different information.  Each side of a discussion will view the other side's link as suspicious.  Statistical science on results of health for those different categories of morality can show the good and bad results of those categories.  Some of those results will vary also, but a general picture will result saying, 'yes, this behaviour leads most often to health and well being, this behaviour leads most often to the hospital.  

      Compassion will publish those results .. but of course those results will result in some people accusing the publishers of fearmongering and hatemongering.  

[swansont]

10 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

What has caused STIs to reach epidemic and record levels in 2018?  Is it the water we drink?  The air we breathe?  Dirty toilet seats?

Is it the so-called "moral authority" not letting people learn how to prevent them, and/or not giving them the means?

Why are you hanging this on science? Do you really think that it's a lack of scientific knowledge that's the bottleneck here?

[Sensei]

11 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

 Or is it an abandonment of what old fashioned people call 'morality?'   What is morality?  Can morality be defined scientifically?

I would not call it "morality" but monogamy vs non-monogamy i.e. polygamy. They are better describing what you're referring to than word "morality".

STI doesn't exclusively spread during sexual intercourse.

"While usually spread by sex, some STIs can be spread by non-sexual contact with donor tissue, blood, breastfeeding, or during childbirth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_infection

e.g. blood transfusion in hospital with low quality standards i.e. without proper checking donors and their blood, can lead to infection without any sexual activity.
Condemning sexually active people will lead only to the spread of diseases more and more all over the world. e.g. infected mother can unintentionally infect her child.

 

Quote

Last year, nearly 2.3 million US cases of these sexually transmitted diseases were diagnosed, according to preliminary data.

That's the highest number ever reported nationwide, breaking the record set in 2016 by more than 200,000 cases, according to the CDC.

I would reverse it, and ask "how many sexually transmitted diseases were not diagnosed?"... and infected people have no idea that they are ill. Undiagnosed infected people remain unknown quantity.

The more conservative society, the less infected people are willing to visit doctor (that's the only way they will be diagnosed and included in statistics), even if there are some the first visible symptoms of illness. And this inevitably leads to free spreading of illnesses.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Sensei

[Itoero]

Quote

•  

Follow 2

 

Has science failed to recognize morality as lifesaving?

No.

There is a lot of (scientific) evidence for religion being an evolutionary trait. And religious thought is strongly linked to morality.

Moral people tend to have more friends, you can say morality improves social cohesion.

What science says about morality is not necessary related to the moral behavior of people….

Edited November 18, 2018 by Itoero

[Arete]

4 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

    Links will most often of course lead to information substantiating the statement of the link's provider.  But there WILL be other links with different information.  Each side of a discussion will view the other side's link as suspicious.  Statistical science on results of health for those different categories of morality can show the good and bad results of those categories. 

This is up there with the weakest rebuttal to a peer reviewed paper I’ve ever seen. Data is immune to ideology. If there is a study out there to support that abstinence only sex education reduces rates of premarital sex, I’m sure it would add to the discussion.

Out of hand dismissal of the data and a rebuttal of “I’m sure I can find evidence to support my argument if I tried” is worthless and indicates a lack of good faith. 

[swansont]

4 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

         Links will most often of course lead to information substantiating the statement of the link's provider.  But there WILL be other links with different information.  Each side of a discussion will view the other side's link as suspicious.  Statistical science on results of health for those different categories of morality can show the good and bad results of those categories.  Some of those results will vary also, but a general picture will result saying, 'yes, this behaviour leads most often to health and well being, this behaviour leads most often to the hospital.  

      Compassion will publish those results .. but of course those results will result in some people accusing the publishers of fearmongering and hatemongering.  

How about addressing the post, instead of setting up how you might ignore evidence that's presented?

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

Links will most often of course lead to information substantiating the statement of the link's provider.  But there WILL be other links with different information.  Each side of a discussion will view the other side's link as suspicious.  Statistical science on results of health for those different categories of morality can show the good and bad results of those categories.  Some of those results will vary also, but a general picture will result saying, 'yes, this behaviour leads most often to health and well being, this behaviour leads most often to the hospital. 

Another example where lack of knowledge fools the ignorant into believing "each side of a discussion" are arguing equally. You don't know what you're talking about (sorry! but true), so you don't have the tools and knowledge necessary to critically judge the validity of both sides of an argument. Ergo, they look the same to you.

And of course, lack of knowledge often leads one to make things up. It's almost impossible to dissuade a person who fills the gaps in their knowledge with junk they've carefully tailored to make sense (to a single person). 

 

 

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but I trust morality derived from reason much more than religion. People's faith can waver, but I think a person is much more likely to be consistent if they've decided what's right and wrong intellectually rather than emotionally. I think the wisdom of compassionate cooperation and communication is a stronger argument for moral behavior than "You'll go to hell!"

If you aren't supposed to do something because your god(s) won't like it, historically we've seen many people either lose faith or decide that they're an instrument of their god's wrath. Emotional stances are often overridden by a more emotional one (indeed, that's often the only thing that will work). Parents might decide it's OK to kill to protect their child, even if they're killing the police to avoid capture.

[coffeesippin]

5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Because the people who advocate on seem to feel they should advocate the other.

If you can find a group that opposes abortion, but promotes the use of condoms then you have found a group that's either irreligious or rather rare.

According to one study at least condoms fail to prevent HIV 50% anyway.  And condoms will fail to prevent STIs if the sex organs are not used for the purpose they were intended .. people with a condom inserting into the anus then into the vagina is not going to save the woman from STI, for instance.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Is it the so-called "moral authority" not letting people learn how to prevent them, and/or not giving them the means?

Why are you hanging this on science? Do you really think that it's a lack of scientific knowledge that's the bottleneck here?

A lack of publicity of scientific knowledge is one major factor.  If people learned the stats I posted, for instance, they would hesitate to abuse their bodies.  People would suffer far less if they learned through science that they need the HPV vaccine because they or a partner are using the anus as a sex toy (this is not homophobia lots of heterosexuals do the same thing.)  Scientific facts are abundant .. they don't get publicized.   Not giving them the means, as far as condoms for instance, they are easily available from a thousand sources, some schools give them out.  If science can demonstrate, through statistics for instance, that it is not sex itself that causes STIs, but certain sexual practices, then old fashioned morality might stand a chance for good publicity.  I was surprised at the amount of scientific literature about scientific approaches to morality.   

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

A lack of publicity of scientific knowledge is one major factor.  If people learned the stats I posted, for instance, they would hesitate to abuse their bodies.  People would suffer far less if they learned through science that they need the HPV vaccine because they or a partner are using the anus as a sex toy (this is not homophobia lots of heterosexuals do the same thing.)  Scientific facts are abundant .. they don't get publicized.   Not giving them the means, as far as condoms for instance, they are easily available from a thousand sources, some schools give them out.  If science can demonstrate, through statistics for instance, that it is not sex itself that causes STIs, but certain sexual practices, then old fashioned morality might stand a chance for good publicity.  I was surprised at the amount of scientific literature about scientific approaches to morality.   

And who is at fault for this lack of publicity? You have not established that it is scientists failing, vs scientists being censored by others (for example). Have you looked at statistics of STI occurrence when information is available, vs when it is not? It seems reasonable to expect that teen STI incidence correlates with teen pregnancy rates

 

And that is separate from the issue of your failure to show that morality is at issue here, mostly from the absence of any clear definition of morality, and its connection to the problem.

[coffeesippin]

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Another example where lack of knowledge fools the ignorant into believing "each side of a discussion" are arguing equally. You don't know what you're talking about (sorry! but true), so you don't have the tools and knowledge necessary to critically judge the validity of both sides of an argument. Ergo, they look the same to you.

And of course, lack of knowledge often leads one to make things up. It's almost impossible to dissuade a person who fills the gaps in their knowledge with junk they've carefully tailored to make sense (to a single person). 

 

 

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but I trust morality derived from reason much more than religion. People's faith can waver, but I think a person is much more likely to be consistent if they've decided what's right and wrong intellectually rather than emotionally. I think the wisdom of compassionate cooperation and communication is a stronger argument for moral behavior than "You'll go to hell!"

If you aren't supposed to do something because your god(s) won't like it, historically we've seen many people either lose faith or decide that they're an instrument of their god's wrath. Emotional stances are often overridden by a more emotional one (indeed, that's often the only thing that will work). Parents might decide it's OK to kill to protect their child, even if they're killing the police to avoid capture.

'You don't know what you're talking about' is the standard response to anyone differing, when the response should be open minded discussion and presentation of information.

Making things up .. with google those things are easy to show as being made up.

Yes reason and intelligence are very important, and most or all faiths will agree ("Love God with all your mind" is a commandment in the New Testament for instance.)    Statistics can prove that people do become instruments perhaps not of God's wrath but of righteous judgment in the same way murders are put behind bars.  However .. I'm not out to preach religion in this topic, but to find ways of giving people a chance at a longer life in which they can search and find morality that will save their lives.  THEN they may want to explore the origins of morality, whether it is science or that which some people call God.  It's obvious the world's religions have failed miserably.   

You use an extreme example, killing police to protect a child, of course that is legitimate in some cases for instance where a White Supremacist authority is out to destroy Blacks, but Matin Luther King with his faith did a good job of reminding Blacks in America that violence is not the answer.  Many people, howevr, would be willing to kill 'barbarians' whose nations possess the crude oil, gold and diamonds in order to protect the fuel supply for their Cadillac (oops, some sort of glitch there perhaps, I meant to write 'child.'

1 minute ago, swansont said:

And who is at fault for this lack of publicity? You have not established that it is scientists failing, vs scientists being censored by others (for example). Have you looked at statistics of STI occurrence when information is available, vs when it is not? It seems reasonable to expect that teen STI incidence correlates with teen pregnancy rates

 

And that is separate from the issue of your failure to show that morality is at issue here, mostly from the absence of any clear definition of morality, and its connection to the problem.

Who is at fault for the lack of publicity?   One simple example:  some moderators on discussion forums shut down the discussion as soon as it approaches the idea of right and wrong in sexual behaviour, accusing the poster of being homophobic even though the poster emphasizes anal sex is also a heterosexual practice .. or far right religious for instance.  I think science can publicize its approach to morality, but doesn't often, and that I hadn't been exposed to the large amount of scientific approach to morality is one example that science itself suppresses its involvement, perhaps FOR the reason scientists may be accused of being right wing fanatics IF they promote publicity.   I'll try to answer your last statement after a short break.

[Arete]

17 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Making things up .. with google those things are easy to show as being made up.

When your default position is “everything that contradicts my position is fake news” your position becomes dismissiable, in its entirety, with contempt. Especially in science.