How does morality affect human advance and technology?

At my house I have this perfect quote by Francis Fukuyama that explains how morality is intricately vital to human ingenuity, advance, technology and science.

( When I get those quotes in order, tomorrow I shall post them in this thread.)

So until then I have but two questions presently…

[b]How does morality affect human advance and technology?

Is human technology and advance an extension of man’s morality in describing the world and all events?[/b]

Francis Fukuyama.

( I don’t agree with his sentiments obviously because evil is nonexistant to me however I’m in complete wonder if morality is the prime mover of ingenuity.) Joker-

it all depends on the human, that is why we have atom bomb and hidden cures for diseases so that those moraly currupt people can get more money to make better weapons of mass distuction, the morals of the world leaders are the ones that effect all people the most.

I think that at first it was religious morality in the confines of churches where priests were speaking about science as the glory of understanding god evidently was the first mover of human advance but soon after as nations became more secular seperating religion from governments subjective morality of economics became the new prime mover.

It is a theory that I am currently working on.

If we can understand religion as a unnecessary prosthetic tool of making sense of the world we could also come to the conclusion that human synthetic imagination might of been evolved or born out of the quest of finding a make believe god that clearly does not exist.

It would then come to be that science,abstract thought and the quest of purpose all have their origins in religion.

The anomaly that has made everything human could be nothing more than a accidental by product of man’s search or quest of finding purpose.

This may seem a bit off, but religion and morality both create dichotomies between right and wrong, or good and evil. No matter what the constitution says, law as it relates to good and evil or right and wrong are based on this idea. People who follow the prevailing moral code are given more freedom, and the system is designed for this to be the case. People who are bad pay fines which can be cripping to their personal economy. They also in some cases aren’t allowed to vote. This maintains the status quo. Whether or not we agree with the prescriptions of right and wrong that religion and morality provide, you can see it working. Some people accumulate wealth, and others become poor. The accumulation of wealth is a necessary precursor for almost all technological advancements. Do an google search and try and find out how much govt grant money, (or wealth that the govt has accumulated based on morally based legislation) goes into research and development. Without some people suffering, we couldn’t get enough resources into the hands of the few people who account for the vast majority or technological advancements.

We can feed the world, or we can buy all sorts of luxuries for those who are fortunate enough to be on the right side of the equation.
It just seems a bit odd that technology is a result of the accumulation of wealth and the application of it to science, which is a result of our system of right and wrong and that technology seems to facilitate more and more of what’s originally called wrong by the moralists. Do you really think that rich religious people would give up their fancy houses and xanax and nice cars and fast computers and etrade accounts just to feed some starving africans? I don’t. But how does this make any sense? Does it imply hypocrisy on the part of those who advocate the system? What about the people who don’t advocate it but have no option but to be goverened by it?

Smears you have no idea how much that post has helped me. :slight_smile:

Do remember that synthetic distinction I was working on that deals with imagination being seperated from the natural world and how I constantly think that it derives from a anomaly?

I think religion,morality and the designated search for purpose from religious origins is that synthetic/ prosthetic anomaly that seperates man from all the rest of creation that I was looking for so deeply.

If I can prove that imagination stems from the prosthetic religious notion of purpose or a god I could then be inclined to prove that all other abstractions from imagination is synthetic as well coming from the same sequence which originates from those archaic religious notions.

Maybe the physical evolution of consciousness came about accidentally from man searching for a god and purpose that isn’t there to begin with. Think about it this way, all that is science and philosophy extends from the early absurd origins of religion.

( Which would explain my firm belief in accidentalism of man’s cognitive facilities.)

( It was last night in my study that all of this occured to me and I have been excited ever since.)

If anybody could show me some deep similarities between science and philosopy in comparison to religion please state them in this thread.