Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Ah, see. I'm an existentialist. I claim that I can't know utterly and completely that I'm right or that you are, particularly where morality is concerned. All I can do is, as you said, to the adacemic legwork and resolve to make guesses where no metaphysical backing for absolute morality seems to make itself clear to the human race.

Besides, personally, I see Christianity, such as it is, as a conceptual invitaton rather than a dogmatic destination to stakeout any moral or political claims over and against those of others. The real substance here in this thread is seen where people have political concerns that "someone else is going to stop me from living life the way I want." So, we're all pressing each other to show where the prescriptive "oughts" might happen to reside.

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.

You can do the 'debate thing,' sure, OR you can just realize instead that there is a plethora of diverse ideas out there and that we might owe it to ourselves to check as many of them out for consideration as time in life affords us to do. This latter option only requires that we be open to playing Ethical and Moral Ping-Pong in ours head rather than only facing up to any apprent conflicts or alternatives when someone makes us relize we've goofed up.

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

I put some bets on what Jesus says. You can choose not to. It's your existence, Bradskii, and you can do with it as you almost darn well please.

I'd simply suggesting that you might make sure that where Christianity is concerned, you've actually attempted to find the more robust scholarly voices rather than scratch at low-hanging fruit that is all too often already laying on the ground.

 

[Bradskii]

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?

You wouldn't go wrong in investigating what Cosmides and Tooby say about evolutionary psychology. This is their 'primer':

Evolutionary Psychology Primer by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby

It's relatively long. But a quick look at their take on reciprocal altruism (which has been mentioned a few times in this thread in relation to a basis for morality) would be worth a few minutes. It's near the end in a section headed Reasoning Instincts: An example, about ten 'pages' up from the bottom.

​

 

[Bradskii]

You can do the 'debate thing,' sure, OR you can just realize instead that there is a plethora of diverse ideas out there and that we might owe it to ourselves to check as many of them out for consideration as time in life affords us to do. This latter option only requires that we be open to playing Ethical and Moral Ping-Pong in ours head rather than only facing up to any apprent conflicts or alternatives when someone makes us relize we've goofed up.

What Christians believe is entirely up to them. Unless their moral certitude impacts on me and mine. So if I have gay friends who want to get married or a family member who is transgender, the these hypothetical moral stances have a direct impact on the way 'me and mine' want to live our lives. So the question then becomes a very definite demand as to what the harm might be. And I want answers.

I'd simply suggesting that you might make sure that where Christianity is concerned, you've actually attempted to find the more robust scholarly voices rather than scratch at low-hanging fruit that is all too often already laying on the ground.

I can only play the hands with which I am dealt. OK, I buy some books that offer solutions with which I disagree. But gee, there is a lot of low hanging fruit about.

Edit: Notwithstanding that questions of morality are not, as far as I am concerned, theological matters. They are practical matters with real life consequences. So I want - no, I demand answers that reflect that. The theological aspects I will leave for Christians to resolve amongst themselves. I can hardly discuss the finer points about what God wants when I don't believe that there is a God who wants anything in the first place.

 

[GenemZ]

An answer would be helpful.

For me? Or, you?

 

[Bradskii]

For me? Or, you?

Is there some sort points system the forum has for avoiding answers? There must be some benefit.

Mm. If there is, I guess I shouldn't expect any direct response, should I...

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

But still; there is not a consistency when it comes to morals people of a society espouse.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You wouldn't go wrong in investigating what Cosmides and Tooby say about evolutionary psychology. This is their 'primer':

Evolutionary Psychology Primer by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby

It's relatively long. But a quick look at their take on reciprocal altruism (which has been mentioned a few times in this thread in relation to a basis for morality) would be worth a few minutes. It's near the end in a section headed Reasoning Instincts: An example, about ten 'pages' up from the bottom.

​

I appreciate the reference, Bradskii, and I'll even look through it. It looks interesting, and it probably does so because I'm already familiar a small bit with the field being that it can sometimes come up in among social science studies.

I was asking Bid D about his own sources so as to find out what his particular views are, which is why I was asking him. I wasn't asking him so that I could learn, but to discern how he's arrived at his views.

Be that as it may, I don't look a gift horse in the mouth, so again, thanks for the source! I always love to read a new scholar or researcher here and there.

 

[durangodawood]

But still; there is not a consistency when it comes to morals people of a society espouse.

There some consistency. I think every society highly discourages randomly killing your neighbor and stealing stuff.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What Christians believe is entirely up to them. Unless their moral certitude impacts on me and mine. So if I have gay friends who want to get married or a family member who is transgender, the these hypothetical moral stances have a direct impact on the way 'me and mine' want to live our lives. So the question then becomes a very definite demand as to what the harm might be. And I want answers.

That's understandable. But I don't think plying the more fundamentalistic, low yield evangelicals with critical questioning is going to yield the answers you may be demanding. You can make it political, but I've often noticed that where motives become charged by political and social concerns, then the reasoning that's employed in the presentation of demands and inquiries ends up being permeated by certain biases and unjustified skepticism to any and every answers given or alluded to.

I can only play the hands with which I am dealt. OK, I buy some books that offer solutions with which I disagree. But gee, there is a lot of low hanging fruit about.

Yes, and that's an unfortunate part of being in a world that now has not hundreds of sources to refer to (like in centuries past), but now billions of them. I agree, it is hard to find fruit that's worth eating, especially where both religion and Christianity are concerned.

That's why I'm an Existentialist. I'm as close as a person can be on a skeptical level to atheism but remain open to the possibilities that death doesn't have to be the final card we play in our respective hands.

Edit: Notwithstanding that questions of morality are not, as far as I am concerned, theological matters. They are practical matters with real life consequences. So I want - no, I demand answers that reflect that. The theological aspects I will leave for Christians to resolve amongst themselves. I can hardly discuss the finer points about what God wants when I don't believe that there is a God who wants anything in the first place.

Forgive me if I have to admit that I sometimes have a difficult time believing folks when they tell me they have intellectual "demands" reflecting various strata of social concern. Maybe I'm just burned out because I've encountered way too much in the way of grandstanding, virtue signaling, stonewalling, and even gaslighting when among various atheists. So, I find it hard to believe that any atheistic skeptics these days, let alone those on CF, actually WANT to survey the landscape of Christian thought on a wider scale.

Just keep in mind that I'm not unlike you in some of this. I have my own demands as well, which is why I've taken degrees in Philosophy and Social Science and education, also engaging atheist mindsets on their own turf, all the while both learning and scrutinizing in the moment.

 

[Ken-1122]

Anarchy then?

Anarchy? How did you make that leap? To not have a favorite ethical view does not equal not having one at all.

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!

Then why did you ask if there were consequences for going against moral views? You would think with all of those degrees and books on your shelf you would ask better questions than the two you’ve asked thus far.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

The idea that actions that benefit others is a morally good thing, is just a subjective opinion that can’t be verified.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Anarchy? How did you make that leap? To not have a favorite ethical view does not equal not having one at all.

Ok. What is your position on Ethics then? It's usually only the very odd bugger who makes up his very own unique set of morals. You're not one of those guys, are you?

Then why did you ask if there were consequences for going against moral views? You would think with all of those degrees and books on your shelf you would ask better questions than the two you’ve asked thus far.

I think you've misunderstood me. I wasn't asking about consequences on a public social scale, especially not about consequences that I don't believe (based on my own moral views) are justified when carried out.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You have no reason to be empathetic, you have no reason to survive or live, you have no inherent value. It's all arbitrary now.

That's not a naturalism, that's nihilistic psychopathy.

 

[Ken-1122]

There some consistency. I think every society highly discourages randomly killing your neighbor and stealing stuff.

Yeah; on the easy stuff like murder or torturing puppies, but if morality were objective, there would be 100% consistently because it would be demonstrable.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok. What is your position on Ethics then? It's usually only the very odd bugger who makes up his very own unique set of morals. You're not one of those guys, are you?

For me, ethics are something to be handled on a case by case basis. Give me an ethical scenario and I will give my moral view of it

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've been following this thread (lightly) for the last few days. It's quite repetitive and long-winded (but what did I expect). It is also flawed, from the beginning.

Let's start with the assumption embedded in the title (and the OP, and many of the post that follow) -- the notion that morality has (or requires) an authoritative basis. This assumes (incorrectly, I would argue) that moral systems are made authoritative by reference to the authority that created them: a religious authority, a great philosopher, or what ever. The alleged "authority" of *any* moral system (if it is claimed to have some) is only the claims of the followers of those "authorities" (and often long after the authority is no longer alive). Some of these claims are quite rigid in adherence to the authority of the moral opinions of those that came before, but I see no reason to think that their moral opinions somehow supersede those of today. I make no claim that my own moral opinions are internally consistent or have simple organizing principle. They never did and they have also changed. But, I don't think that *any* set of moral opinions are fully consistent despite protestations to the contrary. (If Gödel could show that *mathematics* couldn't be complete, why should a moral system be so.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For me, ethics are something to be handled on a case by case basis. Give me an ethical scenario and I will give my moral view of it

The point in this thread isn't about any particular moral view, whether mine or yours, but as to if any moral view at all has the ability to be authoritative, by which we mean universally applicable to other people when its principles are prescribed. It's not simply about whether you as an individual think something is right or wrong.

 

[zippy2006]

Let's start with the assumption embedded in the title (and the OP, and many of the post that follow) -- the notion that morality has (or requires) an authoritative basis.

One of the strong merits of the OP comes from the fact that the secular states which took initial form with the Enlightenment and have now emerged more fully, have at long last been deprived of their religious roots and therefore their moral cohesion and authority. This has resulted in a widely acknowledged "crisis of authority in modernity," which is now occupying secular philosophers as much as it is religious thinkers. We are seeing, before our eyes, the disintegration of entire societies, particularly in the West, due to the lack of moral and social cohesion that was previously provided by religion.

To say that morality does not require an authoritative basis sort of overlooks this most pressing problem of our age.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've been following this thread (lightly) for the last few days. It's quite repetitive and long-winded (but what did I expect). It is also flawed, from the beginning.

Let's start with the assumption embedded in the title (and the OP, and many of the post that follow) -- the notion that morality has (or requires) an authoritative basis. This assumes (incorrectly, I would argue) that moral systems are made authoritative by reference to the authority that created them: a religious authority, a great philosopher, or what ever. The alleged "authority" of *any* moral system (if it is claimed to have some) is only the claims of the followers of those "authorities" (and often long after the authority is no longer alive). Some of these claims are quite rigid in adherence to the authority of the moral opinions of those that came before, but I see no reason to think that their moral opinions somehow supersede those of today. I make no claim that my own moral opinions are internally consistent or have simple organizing principle. They never did and they have also changed. But, I don't think that *any* set of moral opinions are fully consistent despite protestations to the contrary. (If Gödel could show that *mathematics* couldn't be complete, why should a moral system be so.)

So, you're an emotivist, like A.J. Ayer? Or a Communist? Please tell me it ain't so, Hans! Say it ain't so!

 

[GenemZ]

Is there some sort points system the forum has for avoiding answers? There must be some benefit.

Mm. If there is, I guess I shouldn't expect any direct response, should I...

From my perspective?....... For, I do not want to feed you something to find a way to distort.
And, then have to defend against your distortion.

It turns into something like driving with brakes that will not fully disengage.


I already know you could never accept what I know.

For me, that's enough.