@DesertStorm
You're free to discuss about ethics, but you'd need to understand that you're arguing philosophically now.
You sound almost as if you believe you can ignore the argument because of its philosophical nature. There's nothing wrong with a philosophical argument, especially if it has a solid basis in reality. It is also a lot more solid than your appeal to culturally established beliefs. Just because they are established, does not mean they are correct, it just means a large enough group of people holds them. You also ignored my rationality argument, so I assume you concede that your beliefs are in fact irrational.
How do you even quantify ethics in a scientific perspective? Are you serious?!?! The idea of studying ethics in a scientific medium is heavily debated.
This reply just goes to show that you have no clue when it comes to what constitutes the field of ethics and philosophy. There are more than enough branches which have a strong scientific basis in both cases. A prime example relevant to our argument would be moral psychology which is literally a science. Ideas such as altruism, moral development, egoism etc. have a scientific basis, precisely in neurobiology. You can in fact quantify, both psychologically and consequently ethically, the effects of punishing innocent individuals for the mistakes of others, spoiler alert: they are negative. I will also challenge your jab at philosophy - you seem to not be aware of the concept of analytic philosophy which is very much based on formal logic - something which all natural sciences are based on.
You're arguing philosophically again while giving the burden of proof to me.
I am not 'giving the burden of proof on you', the burden of proof is on you to begin with when you make such statements (which btw I believe are scientifically unfounded):
I'd argue that it worked on Asian society then and now, and it's actually one of the reasons society is becoming better.
If anything you said you'd argue that, I challenged you to do so, and now you're trying to weasel your way out of it.
In my opinion, ethics can't be scientifically understood. It's heavily debated though in the philosophy.
As it happens your opinion disagrees with reality as noted above.
Let's not mix ethics with science since it hasn't been fully settled.
They are already mixed as pointed out, all you have to do is pick up a relatively recent reference to see all the results in ethics based on science, mainly psychology, neurobiology, and genetics. You can deny it as vehemently as you want, it won't change reality though.
It's clear to me that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
All things considered, sounds like psychological projection really, which is pathetic. With every reply it becomes clearer that you simply want to defend your cultural beliefs regardless of their objective merit, I've yet to see an actual argument based on something objective and not just what is perceived as moral in your region. Which is pretty ironic and hypocritical considering you were trying to call people out on their arguments being ethnocentric. You've yet to address adequately any of the points I've made too, I am not holding my hopes up, but I'll be waiting.
