Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[durangodawood]

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?

Im not familiar with them. But yes I do believe we posses an innate sort of rudimentary morality.

In typical fashion, I think that was most likely hard wired via our evolution as a social species vs a creator placing it in us in a singular act of creation. As with many genetic inheritances, the odd person may miss out. We have words for them, like "psychopath" etc.

 

[Bradskii]

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?

The problem then becomes: How do we know what authority has the answer? If all Christians agreed on all moral problems because God was giving them the exact same answers every time then I'd quite possibly accept Him as the final arbiter.

But we know that doesn't happen. So who does know what God wants? If we find that person then he or she is the Oracle we need to solve all moral quandaries. They'd be our hotline to God.

Let me know when that happens.

 

[Bradskii]

Through whom.

An answer would be helpful.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

I find this somewhat frustrating. I have no objection to what you propose. In fact, I support it whole heartedly. It's an excellent suggestion. But it's how we reach moral decisions. It seems pointless to me for any Christian to start with a moral position that they say is what God wants and then argue it's merits.

Anyone who disagreed with the position will be, as far as the Christian is concerned, arguing against what God wants. How do you think that would go?

 

[Chriliman]

The problem then becomes: How do we know what authority has the answer? If all Christians agreed on all moral problems because God was giving them the exact same answers every time then I'd quite possibly accept Him as the final arbiter.

But we know that doesn't happen. So who does know what God wants? If we find that person then he or she is the Oracle we need to solve all moral quandaries. They'd be our hotline to God.

Let me know when that happens.

The typical answer to this is Jesus and the few words of his we have in scripture, and I’d agree with that, but He also quickens His people through his Spirit here and now, to say things like “I don’t think God would be displeased by the idea of basing your morality on the objective well being of others and your environment”. I think doing that would actually be pleasing to God.

And to hopefully answer your other post, I think a lot of us earnestly try to figure out what’s true, good, and right without much thought of God, until we read something in scripture or in something else that totally reaffirms what we were thinking and begin to wonder about everything.

I personally don’t think God’s limited to the Bible when communicating to us.

 

[Bradskii]

I personally don’t think God’s limited to the Bible when communicating to us.

Which is precisely the problem. He doesn't appear to send consistent messages. Or maybe He does but the interpretation is either wrong or people are confused about actually having a connection with God.

Either way, let me know when we have someone we can all trust that actually knows what God wants.

 

[Ken-1122]

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

Society does not develop moral rules, individuals do that; society develops laws.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

How is that different from my response? (he who presents the most compelling argument is the one believed)

 

[durangodawood]

Society does not develop moral rules, individuals do that; society develops laws.

It doesnt seem that way. I mean we witness the transmission and reinforcement of codes of conduct and values through cultural products, education, etc, all the time. I do think we're born with some root moral instincts, but even those seem to need nourishment from outside.

 

[Ken-1122]

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?

I don't have a favorite

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

Don't confuse morality with laws. With morality all I can do is disagree with you; with laws, those are usually enforced with consequences if you go against them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I find this somewhat frustrating. I have no objection to what you propose. In fact, I support it whole heartedly. It's an excellent suggestion. But it's how we reach moral decisions. It seems pointless to me for any Christian to start with a moral position that they say is what God wants and then argue it's merits.

Of course it's existentially frustrating, but we all decide to start somewhere, Bradskii? Some of us just search longer and wider than others for an answer.

Anyone who disagreed with the position will be, as far as the Christian is concerned, arguing against what God wants. How do you think that would go?

Oh, I don't think that's a problem. People do it everyday. I do. That's the interesting part of being a Philosopher; I can just conceptually jetset around at will and engage the questions that I want to engage.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't have a favorite

Anarchy then?

Don't confuse morality with laws. With morality all I can do is disagree with you; with laws, those are usually enforced with consequences if you go against them.

Why would I confuse morality with laws when I have two degrees and two dozen books on Ethics sitting on my shelves? C'mon, Ken! Time to wakey wakey after all of these years and realize who it is that you're talking to! Geez!

You're right, though. Morality isn't the same as legal thought, which is why sometimes we should disregard the law. It's also why we should disregard the loose claims of morality that are proferred as morality by this or that individual or group, such as Ultra-Liberals, Communists, Nazis and other extremists who sit themselves up as moral authorities on either the Left or the Right.

 

[Chriliman]

How is that different from my response? (he who presents the most compelling argument is the one believed)

The only issue I have with that answer is you could get a very compelling argument, but if it’s not based on objective facts like how others benefit from said morality(making it objective morality), then it’s just subjective opinion that can’t be verified.

Note: when I use the term ‘objective’ I’m referring to anything in reality that’s not limited to yourself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Im not familiar with them. But yes I do believe we posses an innate sort of rudimentary morality.

In typical fashion, I think that was most likely hard wired via our evolution as a social species vs a creator placing it in us in a singular act of creation. As with many genetic inheritances, the odd person may miss out. We have words for them, like "psychopath" etc.

Again, you're talking in deepities that are somewhat vague, big D! That's not clarifying anything. Do you have any references which you draw upon to make these statements? If you don't, it just kinda sounds like you're making things up. Besides, even if you're not, you still have to deal with the possbility that if evolution is correct---and you and I think it is----it might also have some sort of dousing power on the apparent facts of human morality, forcing us to have to suck up the mud in Nihilism. And that doesn't sound very fun, really, even if it's so-called "nice nihilism."

 

[grasping the after wind]

Who claims the Constitution is morally perfect and without flaw? Not even the men who penned that document makes such a claim. All reasonable people who follow the Constitution acknowledge it is not a morally perfect document, it's just a law and laws aren't perfect. Can the same be said about the Bible?

The men who penned the document no longer make claims. They are all dead and therefore all their claims were made while they lived. Had they lived this long, they could make a claim, but I can't see how one would reasonably say that currently such long lived men makes a claim. I, a living human being in January of 2023, submit that it is invalid to claim to be able to enforce a totally subjective criterion for comparing two documents That] criterion being that if one document is claimed by someone to be morally flawless (which would also mean it was perfect) one cannot compare it to something no reasonable person that we know of claims for another document. Basing one's argument for disallowing a comparison solely upon what someone, outside the party's involved in the discussion, does or does not claim about a document seems to me to be a flimsy reason to try to stop someone from comparing the two documents and to claim that such a comparison is somehow not allowable.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh, I don't think that's a problem. People do it everyday. I do.

But I find it difficult to think that many Christians who say that they have been given what they consider to be God's will, will then spend a great deal of time or emotional energy in arguing, either internally or externally, against it.

Invariably I get told that 'this is what God wants' and then the shutters come down. No further discussion will be entered into (this thread is a good example of that).

 

[Bradskii]

The only issue I have with that answer is you could get a very compelling argument, but if it’s not based on objective facts like how others benefit from said morality(making it objective morality), then it’s just subjective opinion that can’t be verified.

Note: when I use the term ‘objective’ I’m referring to anything in reality that’s not limited to yourself.

The first thing required is to agree on the facts. Else any discussion is dead in the water. Or at least find some facts on which you agree. And then suggest a rock-bottom, absolutely basic position extrapolated from those facts on which you can both agree. Then you're off and running. But perhaps in different directions...

How about this for an attempt to find some common ground regarding bodily autonomy (and this was after many attempts covering the first 60 odd posts):

Can you tell me if you have a preference to not get beaten up?

There is no common ground, I have a basis for my morality and you don't. But to answer your question AGAIN, I don't care if I get beaten up or if I die.

As you can see, something of a failure I'm afraid. At that very point we know beyond any reasonable doubt that a conversation is not going to be possible. There is literally no common ground that will be conceded even at the most basic of levels.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But I find it difficult to think that many Christians who say that they have been given what they consider to be God's will, will then spend a great deal of time or emotional energy in arguing, either internally or externally, against it.

Invariably I get told that 'this is what God wants' and then the shutters come down. No further discussion will be entered into (this thread is a good example of that).

Who cares that they're "telling" you this or that in God's name? You can do the integal work of the scholarly intellectual and research for yourself. No one is going to stop you as far as I know.

Again, I think what I think, regardless, and come to think of it, it's only a few hyper-fundamentalist Christians (and sometimes super-ardent atheists) who even attempt to give me any grief over what I think, or over what it is they think I think.

So, for the most part, I'm existentially unconcerned about what other more extreme (and/or simplistic) folks want me to think. If anything, I kind of pity them for their lack of growth and education.

 

[Bradskii]

Who cares that they're "telling" you this or that in God's name? You can do the integal work of the scholarly intellectual and research for yourself. No one is going to stop you as far as I

But the arguments are not to find a correct answer per se. I'm assuming that both of us have done the legwork and thought about the matter sufficiently to be convinced that individually we are correct. The discussion is to try to convince the other guy that he or she is wrong. It's an attempt to justify one's own position.

Granted, there may be times (and it has happened) when it turns out that the other person has the better argument. Curses! I lose! Then I can have an internal discussion as to whether I really should change my own mind. If I expect the other guy to do so then I must.

But if the other argument is 'God sez so' then all bets are off.

 

[durangodawood]

Again, you're talking in deepities that are somewhat vague, big D! That's not clarifying anything. Do you have any references which you draw upon to make these statements? If you don't, it just kinda sounds like you're making things up. Besides, even if you're not, you still have to deal with the possbility that if evolution is correct---and you and I think it is----it might also have some sort of dousing power on the apparent facts of human morality, forcing us to have to suck up the mud in Nihilism. And that doesn't sound very fun, really, even if it's so-called "nice nihilism."

I dont have references for you, Im afraid. Mainly I'm speaking from the pov of a casually interested layman who follows reputable science where it pops up in the media, in discussion, etc.

As for nihilism, I think the horror at staring into the abyss of nihilism has been a prime motivator for us to create stories, myths, anything to draw off our gaze from the chasm. That doesnt make nihilism false tho. Id prefer to think there's meaning built in to the world, or at least that the meaning we create is compelling enough to overcome dread.