Not that this really matters. Evidence or "GTFO". Even then though that doesn't mean it is a valid plan. I could have all the evidence in the world that sending all men and women to separate prison camps would reduce domestic abuse, but that does not mean such a proposal, correct as it may be, is acceptable. I get that Iceland is their own country with their own laws and standards, but to my American sensibilities this seems to be clearly crossing the line.

In other words, you can form a real argument with undisputed facts, but even that is not sufficient.

A society's standards, including moral standards, are not something that has to pass "evidence".

I find it silly that we ask to justify any and all decisions and laws a society takes with some deterministic, scientific evidence.

Do the "right to freedom" needs any evidence? In fact, there's no evidence at all for that, it's just a moral guideline. Scientifically, we could do the exact opposite.

Do we need "evidence" that black people are the same as white?

Or, (in a case where evidence tells us people are not as capable as us), do we need "evidence" to not treat the physically/mentally ill as inferior?

Do we need evidence that rape is traumatic? And what kind of evidence should that be? Maybe we should not believe it until we actually see changes in a brain scan in post-rape victims (then again, why assume those changes should be for the worst?). Surely trusting what they tell us is not enough -- personal feelings is no evidence.

Now, the case for "increased frequency of sexual violence" against women might, or might not, be quantified.

But the case for "longterm damage for children who view it at an early age" doesn't need to. Living as a society doesn't mean adhering as a robot to scientific notions and discoveries. It involves preferences, choices, and even risk. A society might prefer even a negative outcome, over what is considered healthier and better "scientifically" (E.g they might keep their customs re food , despite evidence that said food can be harmful or some other cusine is more nutricional. Or they might prefer to fight and die instead of collaborating with an invading army (which gives you the scientific benefit of being alive)).

Something like 'longterm damage' is something that can be quantified and measured (correlation, at least). There are a variety of psychological examinations (such as those for trauma, underlying biases, etc.) that you could use to see if early (or earlier) self reported access to pornography in fact correlates to different mental/emotional states later in life. At that point you have quantified changes and can point to them and argue societal values.

The moral argument would be "Children should not be exposed to pornography simply because it is not suitable for people under (age)", not positing things about potential, unquantified 'longterm damage'. We can argue all day about the morals and societal expectations, and it's perfectly reasonable to do so with regards to pornography, but if someone makes a quantifiable argument, they should provide evidence to back it up, or a compelling reason as to why evidence isn't available and why acting without it is still important. (Such as how long it might take to get the evidence, or why it isn't possible to, or why there is a dire and immediate need to act before evidence can be gathered.)

The Western world was never that intellectual to begin with. Western civilisation? Now, that would be a good idea, as Ghandi said.

Plus, the thinkers from the West (and the non-yet-West, Ancient Greece and Rome) that mattered to the so-called "Westend Civilisation" once, weren't hell bent on "evidence" at all.

Modern western civilisation is merely pop culture with some engineering thrown in.

That said, I surely agree that my access to the internet is "contributing to an intellectual decline", if not the internet's then surely mine.

Speaking of "intellectual decline", noticed how your example, e.g about how "mice are born from a peculiar mix of sawdust and wet hay" is NOT an example of a societal standard, whereas I only argued for those?

I'm sure you sidestepped it, as easily as you sidestepped the very part of my comment where I say that "easy access to online porn increases the frequency and severity of sexual violence against women" _could_ be objectively quantified.

For example, I think that exposure to black people and the concept of treating the physically/mentally ill damages children. Should I have to justify that?

No. You are entitled to believe it as a person. But you would have to convince your society about it, if you don't want to be seen with contempt, or if you want that to also have wider appeal.

Notice, though, how you picked a negative example. How about an example that tries (using the same logic) to justify something you already consider bad?

E.g. The same can be said for "racist remarks" or "rape".

One could argue that there is no damage in rape, especially if the victim was drugged and not aware of it happening. Would we be willing to accept that?

How about taking advantage of people to get ahead, including lying et al when you can get away with it? Why would that be wrong "scientifically"? On the contrary, in a game theoretic way it would be totally advantageous for the individual doing it.

At final analysis, morals are things that we don't have to justify scientifically. We might abandon them, or change them, or justify them with regard to other morals and rhetoric, and we might even use some scientific information in the process, but morals are not a subject for scientific assessment.

This statement doesn't make any sense.

Speaking of "intellectual decline", noticed how your example, e.g about how "mice are born from a peculiar mix of sawdust and wet hay" is NOT an example of a societal standard, whereas I only argued for those?

How have you determined that your examples are actually societal standards?

I say that "easy access to online porn increases the frequency and severity of sexual violence against women" _could_ be objectively quantified.

Nobody disagrees with that. But one has to actually quantify such frequency and severity in order to use it in an honest argument, not just claim it could be.

This statement doesn't make any sense.

In what way doesn't it "make sense", because it is trivially parseable in several ways. One is that the Western world is not that self-reflective and meditative upon the meaning of history and life, and substitutes "expert knowledge" and "action" for those.

>How have you determined that your examples are actually societal standards?

By living in a society. Any look at a book of sociology or anthropology 101 will inform you that stances towards sex and violence are always part of societal standards.

Can you elaborate on that please? What time period are you referring to? Which civilizations were more intellectual in your view and how do you quantify it?

I find the ancient civilisations, and especially Greece, to be more intellectual, in that the very idea of society, laws, progress etc is under scrutiny and question in a self-reflective way. But even Europe itself was far more intellectual until around the early 20th century.

E.g Compare the top social discourse of early 20th century Vienna or 19th century Paris with today's NYT best-seller list or political pundits. Or compare ancient greek tragedy (which was at the time mass entertainment) to present day mass entertainment (that would be, blockbuster movies at worst and something like Black Swan or Godfather at its best).

From that time on, the emergence of a mass culture (which killed a less extensive but higher quality upper-middle class culture), the prevalence of market values and the blind respect of "experts" (and "progress" as a non-testable goal in itself) killed the intellectual traits I describe above.

He writes convincingly (for me anyway) that moral discussions need not be arbitrary or driven by "gut instinct." Instead he proposes that a scientific approach to morality indeed would make us more moral.

All our morals stand (and are inherited) from a cultural place outside science and proof.

There is nothing scientific to suggest that one should not kill or exploit everyone in his way for his mere gain for example.

What are you talking about? He is making specific, factual claims, which I quoted. He is not saying "we should do this for moral reasons", he is saying "we need to do this because porn causes violence". There is no evidence that the claim he is using for justification is accurate. Yes, factual claims 'have to pass "evidence"', you don't get to just make shit up to push your personal beliefs on people.

Please take a little more time and care when reading people's posts before you respond to them. When your response is a long tangent based on ignoring the fundamental point of the post you respond to, it doesn't lead to constructive discussion.

Sure, and if you read my reply carefully, you'll see that I say that the first is a factual claim that could be verified quantitatively.

But the second ("it is bad for children") is not. To know what is bad for children you should also know how a society wants it's children to be and to grow up to, which is not something scientific.