What do moral philosophy and the science of morality study?

Philosophy
18

Hi pablozen,

We agree that:

“The goalposts of Good and Evil are fixed since the beginning of time and we can only do better as we learn better.”

And I expect we agree that:

The Golden Rule summarizes morality (Mathew 7:12)

However, I am not religious and do not believe in gods or witchcraft.

I am interested in presenting the science of morality in ways everyone, including religious people, will find useful for resolving moral disputes.

What percentage of religious people do you think might be interested in knowing as purely a matter of science, not religion:

  1. How the goalposts of good and evil were fixed at the beginning of time.
  2. Why the Golden Rule summarizes morality.
  3. Why the Golden Rule is a heuristic (a usually reliable, but fallible, rule of thumb) rather than a moral absolute.
  4. When it is immoral to follow the Golden Rule.
  5. What moral guidance can science provide when it is immoral to follow the Golden Rule.
  6. The arbitrary origins of food and sex taboos such as “eating pigs is an abomination” and “masturbation is a sin”.
  7. The shameful origins of moral norms such as “homosexuality is evil” and “women must be submissive to men”.

Could this be interesting at all? Or will this only sound like offensive nonsense?

How could this be presented (assuming all is true in the normal provisional sense in science) as new knowledge about morality that would be useful to religious people?