Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[Jonaitis]

I would say your God has provided you a path toward basic moral living practical in every step from under your nose without the need of books or belief systems. Yet, it is the sacred books, revealed by God and written through men, that educate us in the various ways we can apply such wisdom in our everyday life.

 

[Jonaitis]

Murder, thievery, and rape are crimes against another's experience, to give a list of example. Promiscuity, homosexuality, and adultery, as another list of examples, degrades the experience of others. We should seek the most enhanced performance of experience, and sexual purity and the sanctity of marriage achieves this than the others. Hedonism is not optimal, but is detrimental, to experience in the long run, so it cannot work. We must be guided by a higher resolution for the extension of the best kind of experiencing, not a poorly graded one.

We could go on! Freedom of speech? Yes. Freedom of Religion and Worship? Yes. But freedom needs guidance, otherwise it becomes detrimental to society.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

What does this say about morality?

If we define consciousness as that quality of subjective experiencing, then, this is without a doubt the ultimate authority on reason and belief. Should we, then, base principles that enhances the propensity of experiencing? I believe so, but to what extend and held by what boundary?

Have you ever heard of a autotelic personality? It is someone who does things, not for some future reward in mind, but for the things in themselves. What is the goal of experiencing? Experience. This is circular, but at the same time undeniably true. It may be that, perhaps, morality should be focused on the enhancement or fitness of experience for me and others? This leads us back to compassion as furthering and progressing the natural state of things. What if compassion enhances conscious experiencing? Then it would be synonymous with the experiencing itself, making compassion the principle and enhancement of experiencing. We should do those things that furthers one's proper experiencing, not deteriorates it.

My whole post was about the authoritativeness of morality within a secular systematic, that's why I posted it within the Atheistic forum and not the forum permeated by our correct Christian dogmas. I was interested in the discussion that would occur here in regards to it. However when you add a Deistic element in order to justify morality (this excludes Naturalism & Materialism) it negates the proposed discussion. This autotelic personality relies upon the presuppositions of psychology which itself relies upon Naturalism in order to determine it's truth, but even then if it happens to be true within the Atheistic or secular moral worldview it would only exacerbate or exemplify the problems with it as specified in the OP "You have no reason to be empathetic, you have no reason to survive or live, you have no inherent value". I agree that a transcendent cause is required in order to establish moral truths, however as evidenced by:

The one with the best argument. I sincerely hope you can give good practical arguments against torture without invoking any reference go God.

Give it a go. I'm keen to see you do it.

It's impossible to establish them within the dogma of the modern day (Naturalism & Materialism). That's why I posted this mate, to have discussion on this particular topic. Everything you've stated assumes a supernatural cause to the causality of morality that emanates from your position. I don't disagree with that, again please see: "from the OP "under naturalism or materialism, a philosophical perspective that denies the transcendent it’s impossible". However everybody who leaves Christ in the West seemingly leaves The Truth for a position that denies any possibility of Him. I was attempting to accentuate and discuss the issues that follow from that grievous error.

We both affirm the transcendent, we both affirm the fact that morality cannot be established without it, we both affirm the circular nature of every worldview and we both affirm the preeminence of our God in all things, including reason. Our disagreements are based on the possibilities of Him existing, but in order to use inductive reasoning (in order to determine these things) we need to have a reason why things in the future will be congruent with actions now. You can't do this without presupposing God as we're unable to examine the future.

There is NO reasoning that is authoritative without God. Nothing works without borrowing from the Christian worldview. It's impossible to establish any kind of truth as you can't even use inductive reasoning, let alone REASON (due to it being not authoritative) without Him. We could trade comments back and forth about possibilities but it does nothing but leave us in the same position from whence we started. In order to have conclusions for ANYTHING, we need a reason as to why our reason & logic is authoritative. That doesn't exist within the modern dogmas that people are leaving Christ for.

 

[Jonaitis]

My whole post was about the authoritativeness of morality within a secular systematic, that's why I posted it within the Atheistic forum and not the forum permeated by our correct Christian dogmas. I was interested in the discussion that would occur here in regards to it. However when you add a Deistic element in order to justify morality (this excludes Naturalism & Materialism) it negates the proposed discussion. This autotelic personality relies upon the presuppositions of psychology which itself relies upon Naturalism in order to determine it's truth, but even then if it happens to be true within the Atheistic or secular moral worldview it would only exacerbate or exemplify the problems with it as specified in the OP "You have no reason to be empathetic, you have no reason to survive or live, you have no inherent value". I agree that a transcendent cause is required in order to establish moral truths, however as evidenced by:

It's impossible to establish them within the dogma of the modern day (Naturalism & Materialism). That's why I posted this mate, to have discussion on this particular topic. Everything you've stated assumes a supernatural cause to the causality of morality that emanates from your position. I don't disagree with that, again please see: "from the OP "under naturalism or materialism, a philosophical perspective that denies the transcendent it’s impossible". However everybody who leaves Christ in the West seemingly leaves The Truth for a position that denies any possibility of Him. I was attempting to accentuate and discuss the issues that follow from that grievous error.

We both affirm the transcendent, we both affirm the fact that morality cannot be established without it, we both affirm the circular nature of every worldview and we both affirm the preeminence of our God in all things, including reason. Our disagreements are based on the possibilities of Him existing, but in order to use inductive reasoning (in order to determine these things) we need to have a reason why things in the future will be congruent with actions now. You can't do this without presupposing God as we're unable to examine the future.

There is NO reasoning that is authoritative without God. Nothing works without borrowing from the Christian worldview. It's impossible to establish any kind of truth as you can't even use inductive reasoning, let alone REASON (due to it being not authoritative) without Him. We could trade comments back and forth about possibilities but it does nothing but leave us in the same position from whence we started. In order to have conclusions for ANYTHING, we need a reason as to why our reason & logic is authoritative. That doesn't exist within the modern dogmas that people are leaving Christ for.

My apologies for detracting from the OP, friend.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

My apologies for detracting from the OP, friend.

No worries mate, it's easy to digress on these topics as they're multifaceted. I love God and His saints with all that I am . That includes you too brother.

 

[Bradskii]

Everything you've stated assumes a supernatural cause to the causality of morality that emanates from your position.

You need to click the little arrow under my avatar. It will show you that I'm an atheist. I've not mentioned anything at all that would indicate that I think morality can only be based on the divine. It obviously can be formulated without reference to God. And I'm keen to see you do it.

If you can't, then your basis for morality becomes 'Because God says so.' I want you to reverse that and say 'God says so because...' and then give me the reason. If there is no reason, then I'll reject your basis for any given morality. I might actually agree with it (don't torture babies for example) but I won't agree on the basis on which you formulated it.

So over to you. Tell me why is torture bad without referencing the divine.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

You need to click the little arrow under my avatar. It will show you that I'm an atheist. I've not mentioned anything at all that would indicate that I think morality can only be based on the divine. It obviously can be formulated without reference to God. And I'm keen to see you do it.

If you can't, then your basis for morality becomes 'Because God says so.' I want you to reverse that and say 'God says so because...' and then give me the reason. If there is no reason, then I'll reject your basis for any given morality. I might actually agree with it (don't torture babies for example) but I won't agree on the basis on which you formulated it.

So over to you. Tell me why is torture bad without referencing the divine.

The "you've" in this circumstance is referring to Jon, not you Brad. Though after I did use your words as an example as to how there's no basis for moral truths within naturalism or materialism.

My basis for morality is that "the source of all truth/God says so", yes I would agree and I would find that presupposition acceptable and able to make morals claims truthful. Unlike the claims of your worldview in which there is no authoritative use for reason or logic. And like I said before, which for some reason you're unable to grasp, you can't establish moral truths without the transcendent as without it they're entirely arbitrary. You can't make claims of moral truths without referencing The Divine, hence the post.

Edit: To answer your question, God says so because He is good. He is the basis for good and what is good and the definition of evil is that which is opposite Him.

 

[Bradskii]

The "you've" in this circumstance is referring to Jon, not you Brad. Though after I did use your words as an example as to how there's no basis for moral truths within naturalism or materialism.

My basis for morality is that "the source of all truth/God says so", yes I would agree and I would find that presupposition acceptable and able to make morals claims truthful. Unlike the claims of your worldview in which there is no authoritative use for reason or logic. And like I said before, which for some reason you're unable to grasp, you can't establish moral truths without the transcendent as without it they're entirely arbitrary. You can't make claims of moral truths without referencing The Divine, hence the post.

Edit: To answer your question, God says so because He is good. He is the basis for good and what is good and the definition of evil is that which is opposite Him.

I'm disappointed that you won't even try. Let's face it, there's no cricket on so we've plenty of time.

How about I ask you if bodily autonomy is important to you. That you personally would not like to be locked up or beaten for no reason. No need to reference scripture or God or anything divine. What do you personally think?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm disappointed that you won't even try. Let's face it, there's no cricket on so we've plenty of time.

How about I ask you if bodily autonomy is important to you. That you personally would not like to be locked up or beaten for no reason. No need to reference scripture or God or anything divine. What do you personally think?

Mate you haven't even grappled with the point of the OP. How many times do I have to repeat that there is NO ABILITY TO MAKE MORAL TRUTH CLAIMS WITHOUT REFERENCING GOD/THE DIVINE/THE TRANSCENDENT in order for you to understand the position? You keep excluding God from your prose that I need to be able to say why horrible things are horrible, when I've explicitly said IT'S NOT POSSIBLE without the transcendent as morality would be arbitrary. It's like asking green to be blue, it's inherently incompatible. This post was about the reason why moral truth claims are incompatible with naturalism & materialism and all you've done is sowed red herrings without any foundation to claim a moral wrong.

Nevertheless I'll answer your question. We are all made in the image of God, God has also individually established the criteria in which we are to treat one another, therefore we are all equal regarding our bodily autonomy and should respect one another in the following of our Christ. Bodily autonomy therefore is important to me because of the parameters in which our God (the source of all truth) has established.

What's your reason for bodily autonomy being important? because the stimulus which has no reason as to why it's authoritative says it's bad?

 

[Bradskii]

Nevertheless I'll answer your question. We are all made in the image of God, God has also individually established the criteria in which we are to treat one another, therefore we are all equal regarding our bodily autonomy and should respect one another in the following of our Christ. Bodily autonomy therefore is important to me because of the parameters in which our God (the source of all truth) has established.

That's not answering my question. I want to know what you personally would feel about losing your freedom or being physically assaulted. I can't imagine that someone is on the point of beating you up and you telling the guy 'We are all made in the image of God, God has also individually established the criteria in which we are to treat one another, therefore we are all equal regarding our bodily autonomy and should respect one another in the following of our Christ. Bodily autonomy therefore is important to me because of the parameters in which our God (the source of all truth) has established, so therefore you shouldn't beat me up.'

I can simplify this and ask if you'd like or dislike getting a smack in the mouth for no reason. I'm not looking for anything deep and meaningful here. Just a simple answer to a simple question.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

That's not answering my question. I want to know what you personally would feel about losing your freedom or being physically assaulted. I can't imagine that someone is on the point of beating you up and you telling the guy 'We are all made in the image of God, God has also individually established the criteria in which we are to treat one another, therefore we are all equal regarding our bodily autonomy and should respect one another in the following of our Christ. Bodily autonomy therefore is important to me because of the parameters in which our God (the source of all truth) has established, so therefore you shouldn't beat me up.'

I can simplify this and ask if you'd like or dislike getting a smack in the mouth for no reason. I'm not looking for anything deep and meaningful here. Just a simple answer to a simple question.

You're not engaging the discussion at all. If I rely on my personal preference as the guiding presupposition/hermeneutic then I prove my point true that morality within a secular systematic is entirely arbitrary. You're essentially trolling.

 

[Jonaitis]

I can simplify this and ask if you'd like or dislike getting a smack in the mouth for no reason. I'm not looking for anything deep and meaningful here. Just a simple answer to a simple question.

A bear can come up and attack me in a forest, killing me brutally, but I wouldn't attribute his action as immoral. But if a human did the same, would it still be immoral? If so, why is that? What makes the bear's motive or lack of motive any different than my fellow man?

 

[Neutral Observer]

You're not engaging the discussion at all.

Of course he isn't engaging in the discussion, because the argument really doesn't make any sense.

Though after I did use your words as an example as to how there's no basis for moral truths within naturalism or materialism.

Specifically, here's your problem, of course there's a basis for morality within naturalism and materialism, it's just not an objective one. Full stop.

Ta da, problem resolved.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Of course he isn't engaging in the discussion, because the argument really doesn't make any sense.



Specifically, here's your problem, of course there's a basis for morality within naturalism and materialism, it's just not an objective one. Full stop.

Ta da, problem resolved.

Did you even read the OP and the problems of subjective morality that were proposed?

"For example the Romans who created the longest lasting empire waged warfare continuously. Something that would be seen as obscene today. If your morality is based upon practicality and what works, then a society who's economic basis is built upon slavery (The Romans) would view slavery as good. In order to call the Romans wrong for building their empire on the backs of slaves you would need a reason as to why slavery is wrong both for them and us. In which case in order to do so you would assume a moral standard, something not relative."

"ANY *secular* worldview agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them, they are arbitrary agreements and need a basis if you want to condemn someone. If a society comes together and agrees that torture for x reason is moral, and I disagree, which one would be right and why? The moral principles are entirely arbitrary, you need a reason as to why hurting people is bad and then a reason as to why it's true. If you have no reason as to why it's true then you literally have no reason to believe it or follow it, let alone legislate it. If your reason is the avoidance of harm, you have now assumed that the avoidance of harm is a moral truth and you assume the value of human life which has no basis in materialism & naturalism (the dogmas which *secular* science is dependent upon). It seems incoherent."

"In order to believe certain morals are correct then you need to have a reason as to why that’s the case, under naturalism or materialism, a philosophical perspective that denies the transcendent it’s impossible. You have no reason to be empathetic, you have no reason to survive or live, you have no inherent value"

Without correct morals there is no evil, there is only arbitrary personal preference. If subjective morality is true then everything is permissible.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Did you even read the OP and the problems of subjective morality that were proposed?

Yup, read the entire OP. Reiterating it doesn't help.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Yup, read the entire OP. Reiterating it doesn't help.

Oh ok so I suppose ignoring it is the solution.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Yup, read the entire OP. Reiterating it doesn't help.

You have no justification as to why your morals are correct and you haven't provided any. All you've done is dismiss based on absolutely no reason or at least you haven't provided any. Regardless of if you're morals are subjective, in order to hold to certain moral stances you still need a reason why they are true/correct, otherwise you have no reason to hold them. You've said nothing and have provided nothing.

 

[Bradskii]

You're not engaging the discussion at all. If I rely on my personal preference as the guiding presupposition/hermeneutic then I prove my point true that morality within a secular systematic is entirely arbitrary. You're essentially trolling.

Hey, let's back the truck up a little. If I'm going to indicate a secular morality then we need to agree on some things. If you just want someone to agree with your original premise with no thoughtful debate then you've come to the wrong place. So...

We can agree that bodily autonomy is important. Tick. Now can we agree that we have a personal preference in that regard? It's not a gotcha. If you agree then there's quite someway to go. Me, I don't like getting hit upside the head for no reason. Nobody does. It hurts and might cause some physical damage and I don't want the first and would prefer to avoid the second. I don't know anyone who isn't like that, save some [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] types perhaps. I assume you're the same. Can we agree on that?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Hey, let's back the truck up a little. If I'm going to indicate a secular morality then we need to agree on some things. If you just want someone to agree with your original premise with no thoughtful debate then you've come to the wrong place. So...

We can agree that bodily autonomy is important. Tick. Now can we agree that we have a personal preference in that regard? It's not a gotcha. If you agree then there's quite someway to go. Me, I don't like getting hit upside the head for no reason. Nobody does. It hurts and might cause some physical damage and I don't want the first and would prefer to avoid the second. I don't know anyone who isn't like that, save some [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] types perhaps. I assume you're the same. Can we agree on that?

I want you to dispute my premise but all you've done is ask nebulous questions which require a foundation for their truthfulness or presuppose certain truths in order to establish them. No we can't agree bodily autonomy is important because you have no basis or reason for doing so but personal arbitrary preference. All of your claims are an appeal to emotion yet somehow I'm supposed to agree because 'stimulus feels bad'.

 

[FireDragon76]

Go read some Nietzsche or Kierkegaard. This isn't just a problem for secular people, and trying to imply it is is a symptom of the underlying problem.