Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[2PhiloVoid]

The claim that an authority (other than each of us) is not needed for morality is the default position. If your point is that such an authority is needed, that is up for you to prove.

I think the underlying point is that without an absolute metaphysical value to support your own view of morality, then any expectations that you have about my recognition and respect for your own Ethical framework and [set] of moral values is more or less unjustified.

Somehow, it just seems that for the whole concept of Ethical Life among human beings to have much meaning, there should be something highly significant shared among us by which we could all then make similar evaluations about the significance and value of each other's humanity.

Otherwise, we might have moral relativists like Hitler's Nazis or Lenin's socialist goons poking up and prodding folks to conform ... Maybe?

 

[Chriliman]

The claim that an authority (other than each of us) is not needed for morality is the default position. If your point is that such an authority is needed, that is up for you to prove.

So we’re each our own personal authority?

If that’s true, the issue is then how do we determine who’s actually right, or is it impossible to determine who’s actually right if morality is purely subjective?

It appears to be impossible because if it were then we’d have an objective authority on morality. This is the reason some of us look for an objective authority. Because we’re not okay with the idea that we can’t actually be right about things.

We want an authority that can be tested against reality and come out true. Is that not appealing or interesting to you?

 

[durangodawood]

I don't understand the basis of your assumptions. I have given my general position in other threads, some of which I have started myself. What have I said in this thread or in the past that leads you to believe that I posit morality apart from moral agents?

Edit: Here is the final post of our last interaction on the topic. Feel free to follow those links back.

Can you link to the post where you say what you think a moral fact or claim actually is? "Go find it" is a bit much.

 

[YahuahSaves]

So you do know how secular morality works...

I expect you to use God as the source of your morality, but when you asked this...

'So what's your morality based on then? Self-preservation? Giving something for the sake of getting something in return?'

...you already knew. And part of it was don't do X because it led to Y actions that have led to immediate negative consequences. Immoral acts cause harm. And the corollary is, if no harm is done then it can't be immoral.

Of course I know how secular morality works...believers are people too and many were also non-believers at one time. and to the last statement you made: "And the corollary is, if no harm is done then it can't be immoral", what constitutes "harm"? There are varying degrees of harm and sometimes what we view as harmful to us is the very thing we need to help us grow. Emotions are fickle and cannot truly be relied upon to tell us facts about reality and the world.

 

[YahuahSaves]

The claim that an authority (other than each of us) is not needed for morality is the default position. If your point is that such an authority is needed, that is up for you to prove.

Chaos vs. Order. Which one benefits society (as a whole) the most?

 

[GenemZ]

By whom?

Through whom.

 

[durangodawood]

To a child the moral authority is the parent, There, we found an authority!

 

[Neutral Observer]

I think the underlying point is that without an absolute metaphysical value to support your own view of morality, then any expectations that you have about my recognition and respect for your own Ethical framework and [set] of moral values is more or less unjustified.

First off, I appreciate your insight and perspective, and I believe that you've laid out the framework of this discussion rather concisely.

However, I do believe that one could proffer an absolute basis for morality without having to resort to a divine being.

That basis may at first glance seem rather unappealing, but it's evolution. And its basis for morality is simply that which leads to survival, again a very unappealing answer if one is expecting something along the lines of "love thy neighbor". But indeed "love thy neighbor" may inevitably be the one requisite ingredient by which any sentient beings ultimately survive.

Now one could envision an omnipotent being seated on a throne somewhere arbitrarily deciding what's good and what's bad, but ultimately what's good and what's bad, may simply be defined by what survives.

In some sense it's like thinking that God had to decide what the fundamental laws of physics should be in order to create reality. But perhaps all that God had to do was to will things to be, and after that, form just necessarily follows function. The laws that govern physics and the laws that define morality may simply follow from the fact that we exist, perhaps because God willed that we exist, and after that, the effects, both physical and moral, just naturally followed from the cause...God's will.

@Bradskii has asked numerous times how God decides what's moral, seemingly without an answer, but perhaps the answer is both simpler than we believe, and at the same time more complex. Simple enough to be encapsulated in one overarching rule, love thy neighbor, yet complex enough to reflect that times, and cultures, and people, and circumstances change. And morality, like so many things, isn't always black and white, even if we try to make it so.

Anyway, sitting here contemplating the whole premise of this thread, those are my thoughts.

 

[durangodawood]

...Somehow, it just seems that for the whole concept of Ethical Life among human beings to have much meaning, there should be something highly significant shared among us by which we could all then make similar evaluations about the significance and value of each other's humanity....

I think natural facts that we more or less share has to be that basis. Metaphysical or super-natural claims - that we dont share and fight endless wars over - seem a little airy for a moral foundation that we can share.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think the underlying point is that without an absolute metaphysical value to support your own view of morality, then any expectations that you have about my recognition and respect for your own Ethical framework and [set] of moral values is more or less unjustified.

I disagree. The best way to give my view credibility is to have a conversation and explain why my moral view is best.

 

[Ken-1122]

So we’re each our own personal authority?

Yes!

If that’s true, the issue is then how do we determine who’s actually right, or is it impossible to determine who’s actually right if morality is purely subjective?

Whoever presents the most convincing argument is the one who is believed to be right.

It appears to be impossible because if it were then we’d have an objective authority on morality. This is the reason some of us look for an objective authority. Because we’re not okay with the idea that we can’t actually be right about things.

How do you know your objective authority is right?

We want an authority that can be tested against reality and come out true. Is that not appealing or interesting to you?

It sounds interesting, but what happens when we disagree on which authority to use?

 

[Ken-1122]

Chaos vs. Order. Which one benefits society (as a whole) the most?

What does chaos vs order have to do with morality?

 

[durangodawood]

What does chaos vs order have to do with morality?

I think an aversion to chaos is a root driver of much of the moral rules societies develop.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

First off, I appreciate your insight and perspective, and I believe that you've laid out the framework of this discussion rather concisely.

However, I do believe that one could proffer an absolute basis for morality without having to resort to a divine being.

That basis may at first glance seem rather unappealing, but it's evolution. And its basis for morality is simply that which leads to survival, again a very unappealing answer if one is expecting something along the lines of "love thy neighbor". But indeed "love thy neighbor" may inevitably be the one requisite ingredient by which any sentient beings ultimately survive.

Now one could envision an omnipotent being seated on a throne somewhere arbitrarily deciding what's good and what's bad, but ultimately what's good and what's bad, may simply be defined by what survives.

In some sense it's like thinking that God had to decide what the fundamental laws of physics should be in order to create reality. But perhaps all that God had to do was to will things to be, and after that, form just necessarily follows function. The laws that govern physics and the laws that define morality may simply follow from the fact that we exist, perhaps because God willed that we exist, and after that, the effects, both physical and moral, just naturally followed from the cause...God's will.

@Bradskii has asked numerous times how God decides what's moral, seemingly without an answer, but perhaps the answer is both simpler than we believe, and at the same time more complex. Simple enough to be encapsulated in one overarching rule, love thy neighbor, yet complex enough to reflect that times, and cultures, and people, and circumstances change. And morality, like so many things, isn't always black and white, even if we try to make it so.

Anyway, sitting here contemplating the whole premise of this thread, those are my thoughts.

Those are some useful thoughts, WC. The problem with this direction of thought is that "even if" evolution was to offer us some kind of absolute notions by which we could plot a more authoritative course for human morality, I don't think it would push us to the level that Jesus does where essentially "Christian" notions of morality demand we go (e.g. "Love your enemy"?)

So, even if we take up the anthropological thesis of Barbara J. King in her book, Evolving God, and what it offers, along with the insights of Frans de Waal, the best we can do is reach a more or less descriptive level of biological and behavioral typicalities. There is little there by which we can gain the prescriptive "ought" from the biological "is." King's descriptive and behavorial insights, as much as I really like her work, don't provide us the notion that we have a specific set of known absolutely binding universal Ethical principles that we all have to abide by. She just posits that we more or less have a strong urge to "belong."


Thus, without God to provide the metaphysical level of absolute authority and essence to our specific (or individual) moral expectations, none of us really has to be very mindful of any moral insistencies that other people might want to ply us with. Other than the fact that if we mess with other people in painful ways, we're liable to gain a swift and surly kick to the pants to wake us up.


You're right, though, to say that not everything in Ethics and Morality is black and white. That's a whole other can of worms to sort out that is separate from the confluence of factors that might or might not ground any particular notion of absolute morality. This is particularly so since there are a dozen competing Ethical Systems we all have to swim through, not to mention a few Meta-Ethical issues to sort out.


Thanks for sharing your thoughts on all of this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think natural facts that we more or less share has to be that basis. Metaphysical or super-natural claims - that we dont share and fight endless wars over - seem a little airy for a moral foundation that we can share.

But we fight wars with each other and threaten each other and cheat each other, nevertheless. So, I'm not sure that I can sign on with you in saying that we can clearly see biologically attuned moral priniciples floating about to provide us absolute notions of morality and as to "how" to properly encourage those or assume we should have those principles in common.

Like I was saying to Bradskii, without God, I tend to see human morality as rather nebulous.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes!

Whoever presents the most convincing argument is the one who is believed to be right.

How do you know your objective authority is right?

You do the work to test your moral ideas against objective reality(including other moral agents), using logic and reasoning. If your met with someone who disagrees with you, you point to how objective reality(including other moral agents) is affected by your morality in a way that’s good and beneficial for others, objectively speaking. Benefiting the reality you exist in and those in it (even possible beings like God or aliens) becomes the objective basis for your morality, not necessarily just yourself and your own subjectivity.

It sounds interesting, but what happens when we disagree on which authority to use?

See above, but this is the exact question I posed to you, for which there’s no clear answer given pure subjectivity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I disagree. The best way to give my view credibility is to have a conversation and explain why my moral view is best.

If you disagree then I think you've misunderstood what I said. I'm not talking about "making your view known...," which it seems you're here all too readily to do like so many atheist here on CF.

But, be that as it may: What is your favored Ethical view? Egoism? Hedonism? What?

...And why should I care? Ya gonna do something to me if I don't?

 

[durangodawood]

But we fight wars with each other and threaten each other and cheat each other, nevertheless. So, I'm not sure that I can sign on with you in saying that we can clearly see biologically attuned moral priniciples floating about to provide us absolute notions of morality and as to "how" to properly encourage those or assume we should have those principles in common. Like I was saying to Bradskii, without God, I tend to see human morality as rather nebulous.

With our biological instincts toward social behavior at least there's something in common to appeal to in your counterpart. And even tho those dont often apply inter-tribally at first, some simple contact can humanize the "other".

But appealing to your counterpart to recognize your deity along with rules that are specially revealed? Good luck. It happens, of course, but its a process with a timeline typically way further out than the conflict we may be having right now.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

With our biological instincts toward social behavior at least there's something in common to appeal to in your counterpart. And even tho those dont often apply inter-tribally at first, some simple contact can humanize the "other".

But appealing to your counterpart to recognize your deity along with rules that are specially revealed? Good luck. It happens, of course, but its a process with a timeline typically way further out than the conflict we may be having right now.

There's that nebulousness I was talking about.

But so as to make your allusions here more tangible, should I assume you agree with someone like Barbara J. King or Frans de Waal where at least what might qualify as a miniminalistic sense of morality may be seen by both you and I?

 

[Bradskii]

Of course I know how secular morality works...believers are people too and many were also non-believers at one time. and to the last statement you made: "And the corollary is, if no harm is done then it can't be immoral", what constitutes "harm"? There are varying degrees of harm and sometimes what we view as harmful to us is the very thing we need to help us grow. Emotions are fickle and cannot truly be relied upon to tell us facts about reality and the world.

In some cases it's pretty obvious. In others, not so easy to determine. And yeah, there is an argument that adversity can be a good thing. That which doesn't kill me etc.

However, where I generally have disagreements with some Christians is their insistence on some matter that they say is immoral when there is patently no harm (this goes right back to the first couple of posts when I was asking about harm and asking @Tranquil Bondservant If he'd mind being smacked in the mouth). And the answer I often get is something along the lines of 'it harms the eternal soul.' Which to my mind is nothing more than 'God says no and you'll be held to account.'

Guess how much weight I give that argument? About as much as you probably did when you weren't a Christian. And the argument is only relevant to Christians in any case, and quite often only to a certain percentage of them. Presumably that percentage would all say that they have a personal relationship with God and if they are quite happy with the answers they get from Him, who are you or anyone else to say that you know what God wants but they don't?