Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[Bradskii]

We are seeing, before our eyes, the disintegration of entire societies, particularly in the West...

We do? Can you give some examples so we know what you mean by 'disintegration of entire societies'?

 

[Bradskii]

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.

A few extra points there.

 

[GenemZ]

We do? Can you give some examples so we know what you mean by 'disintegration of entire societies'?

You work with a format tactic. How to obstruct. And, how to deny the obvious while doing so.

If you can not detect the disintegration of American society? An, answer, no matter how correct, would never sway you.

So why should one bother?

 

[Bradskii]

You work with a format tactic. How to obstruct. And, how to deny the obvious while doing so.

If you can not detect the disintegration of American society? An, answer, no matter how correct, would never sway you.

So why should one bother?

You shouldn't. I have zero expectation of you answering even the most basic of questions. That's why I didn't ask you.

 

[YahuahSaves]

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.

Like set-and-forget creation? Ah... no. We're in a spiritual battle here.

Colossians 1:16

16 for through him God created everything
in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
and the things we can’t see—
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
Everything was created through him and for him.

Ephesians 3:10

10 God’s purpose in all this was to use the church (Hebrew=Ekklesia) to display his wisdom in its rich variety to all the unseen rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

 

[YahuahSaves]

What does chaos vs order have to do with morality?

People use survival as the basis for their morality.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

The only way moral views can be authoritative is if people join a group (like a religion,) and the people of the group all agree to allow whoever leads the group dictate their beliefs. The morality of the group leader will be authoritative over the people who joined the group.

 

[Ken-1122]

People use survival as the basis for their morality.

Any examples of this?

 

[Chriliman]

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):


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.

Of course I would rather not be beaten up, but that may change if the reason I’m being beaten up is because I’m staying true to a conviction I have. That conviction may be to save something or not resort to violence.

 

[GenemZ]

A few extra points there.

You present a premise? No.. Its always easy to attack the premises of others when you are of a negative pole, and easy not to have to come up with something as a possible solution.

You shouldn't. I have zero expectation of you answering even the most basic of questions. That's why I didn't ask you.

Good.... I know when I would be wasting time. Comes with age.

 

[YahuahSaves]

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).

Yes, and you used physical harm to describe the definition, whereas, harm also applies to anything that causes long term psychological and societal damage. We can use war as an example, which is physical, or we can use personal ideologies pushed on society as a whole. Both religion and secular beliefs (movements) have done this over the centuries.

 

[Chriliman]

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

Are you saying a certain set of moral values can’t be verified to actually benefit peoples lives?

 

[Bradskii]

People use survival as the basis for their morality.

No, it's bodily autonomy. Moral concepts such as euthanasia are obviously concerned with autonomy and not survival.

 

[YahuahSaves]

They'd be our hotline to God

You have your own hotline to God, you just choose not to use it.

 

[Bradskii]

Of course I would rather not be beaten up, but that may change if the reason I’m being beaten up is because I’m staying true to a conviction I have. That conviction may be to save something or not resort to violence.

Agreed. But I think we could skip the exceptions to the rule and agree on the rule.

 

[Ken-1122]

Are you saying a certain set of moral values can’t be verified to actually benefit peoples lives?

No; I'm saying you can't verify that it is morally right to benefit people's lives

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, and you used physical harm to describe the definition, whereas, harm also applies to anything that causes long term psychological and societal damage. We can use war as an example, which is physical, or we can use personal ideologies pushed on society as a whole. Both religion and secular beliefs (movements) have done this over the centuries.

I used physical harm because that's easy to determine. A split lip and a few missing teeth are pretty obvious. But sure, psychological harm must be included. So bullying without any actual physical harm would be immoral.

 

[Bradskii]

You have your own hotline to God, you just choose not to use it.

Come on, now. You know as well as I do that different Christians hold different moral positions and they will each tell you that they are guided by what they personally think God wants.

Have you never thought about the fact that every single Christian who says that they know what He wants appears to want exactly the same thing? Coincidence? I think not...

 

[YahuahSaves]

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).

Your posts you mean.

 

[Bradskii]

Your posts you mean.

Yeah, sure. I've kept my views and opinions so tightly guarded that no-one knows my position on morality whatsoever...