Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[YahuahSaves]

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

You can't deny that fancy term still links to our most basic human instincts. Which is not based on anything that can be agreed upon. One person believes euthanasia is moral, another does not. Both are dying horrible painful deaths. Which one is right?

 

[YahuahSaves]

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

You mentioned others shutting down to your questions. It's you who have done that the most often on this thread.

 

[YahuahSaves]

So bullying without any actual physical harm would be immoral.

I agree. So how do we know if that's morally accurate from a societal point-of-view?

 

[YahuahSaves]

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.

Many people interpret scriptures from their own human understanding. My point was you can have the same salvation and spiritual relationship with God that is extended to everyone. But it's a choice.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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!

I'm an atheist. (I believe in no gods.) And a scientist (My profession). I am no other kind of "ist". I am allergic to categorization. It requires too much dedication to consistency. Life is too messy for categories.

 

[Bradskii]

You can't deny that fancy term still links to our most basic human instincts. Which is not based on anything that can be agreed upon. One person believes euthanasia is moral, another does not. Both are dying horrible painful deaths. Which one is right?

Fancy term?

If I'm the one dying, I am. Because it involves my bodily autonomy. Which means my right to decide what happens to me. So my decision will be correct. Whatever it is.

What the..? Can there be two different answers and both correct? Yeah, there can. We just ask the person involved. None of us are in a position to deny their decision.

How about that for a great example of relative morality?

 

[YahuahSaves]

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

Can't be verified? The proof is usually in the pudding.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree. So how do we know if that's morally accurate from a societal point-of-view?

Why take it up to the societal level? If someone is bullying someone else, i.e. causing mental distress just for the sheer pleasure of doing so, then it's wrong. As a society we can take steps to prevent it, but it's immoral on an individual level.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

I think you might have wandered in from the "West is collapsing - ahhhhhhh" thread.

This "problem" you speak of. It sound like the problem of realizing that morality is *not* authoritative and figuring out how to deal with that reality. Or as I'd rather say: "The real issue in morality today is that we need think about how we construct a moral system given the non-existence of god." I don't expect many on this board to accept that position.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Can there be two different answers and both correct? Yeah, there can. We just ask the person involved. None of us are in a position to deny their decision.

So if a person came up to you in the street and told you they wanted you to kill them, would you do it?

 

[Bradskii]

Many people interpret scriptures from their own human understanding. My point was you can have the same salvation and spiritual relationship with God that is extended to everyone. But it's a choice.

If I had it then I'm sure I'd get as much from it as you undoubtedly do. But I can't choose to have a relationship with someone whom I don't believe exists. That ship sailed a very long time ago.

But it prompts an interesting thought. Those who were atheists and held to what we might describe as secular views on, for example, ssm or abortion or contraception etc etc, if they have an epiphany and find they have a relationship with God, what happens to all their well thought out and definitive views on those matters?

You said you were an atheist, but it's a kinda personal question so I'm not directly asking you.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Why take it up to the societal level?

It already has been. In education and workplaces there are now policies against bullying...you should know this. So...how did that happen if morality is subjective?

 

[Bradskii]

Can't be verified? The proof is usually in the pudding.

I tend to agree here. Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape said much the same thing. If we use an argument that says causing uneccesary harm is immoral then we must be able to determine when harm occurs. And then note when it doesn't if we persuade people not to act immoraly in that instance.

 

[YahuahSaves]

ut it prompts an interesting thought. Those who were atheists and held to what we might describe as secular views on, for example, ssm or abortion or contraception etc etc, if they have an epiphany and find they have a relationship with God, what happens to all their well thought out and definitive views on those matters?

You said you were an atheist, but it's a kinda personal question so I'm not directly asking you.

I never said I was an atheist. I believed in my own version of God. But I didn't necessarily agree with certain issues because I believe personal accountability for one's actions is paramount in living peacefully. Perhaps that's part of my upbringing, perhaps it's part of my interant nature, perhaps both.

 

[Bradskii]

So if a person came up to you in the street and told you they wanted you to kill them, would you do it?

A guy on the street? I would doubt their sanity in the first instance, so no. I wouldn't. But if my wife was suffering from an incurable illness and was in pain and wanted to end it, then I would be quite prepared to do whatever was necessary to help her do so.

And we have had this discussion (following the long, drawn out and painful end of her father), so we both know how we would each respond.

 

[Bradskii]

I never said I was an atheist. I believed in my own version of God. But I didn't necessarily agree with certain issues because I believe personal accountability for one's actions is paramount in living peacefully. Perhaps that's part of my upbringing, perhaps it's part of my interant nature, perhaps both.

Sorry, my bad.

 

[Bradskii]

It already has been. In education and workplaces there are now policies against bullying...you should know this. So...how did that happen if morality is subjective?

Just because it's subjective doesn't mean we can't get general agreement on what is right or wrong. But note that even getting universal agreement doesn't then make it objective. Objective morality isn't dependent on a vote.

 

[zippy2006]

I think you might have wandered in from the "West is collapsing - ahhhhhhh" thread.

This "problem" you speak of. It sound like the problem of realizing that morality is *not* authoritative and figuring out how to deal with that reality. Or as I'd rather say: "The real issue in morality today is that we need think about how we construct a moral system given the non-existence of god." I don't expect many on this board to accept that position.

No, the problem is how to establish a cohesive moral-societal whole in the midst of pluralism and "multiculturalism," for the natural and historical context for a cohesive moral-societal whole is a religion/culture that permeates the society.

"...given the non-existence of god." I don't expect many on this board to accept that position.

Not many people anywhere will accept that position, for although it's endearing that atheists continue to assume that their own position is widely held, empirical data shows them to be badly mistaken. The shift is not from theism to atheism, but rather from traditional and established religions to syncretic and idiosyncratic forms of religiosity. But again, from the perspective of moral authoritativeness, the problem is a lack of cohesion. This of course includes a lack of cohesion in morality, religion, culture, politics, and a lack of cohesion or common ground between the different generations and the two sexes.

The interesting part is that the atheists of old realized that if the age-old societal religion were overthrown, chaos would ensue unless something were provided to take its place (e.g. Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Marx, Comte, et al.). The atheists of today just say, "We don't need an authoritative moral fabric!"

 

[YahuahSaves]

but it's immoral on an individual level.

So how do you determine that? Nelson doesn't agree with your view, is he in the wrong? It makes him feel good to laugh at others and cause them pain and humiliation, it makes him happy. Are you saying society should stop him from being himself and being happy?

 

[Bradskii]

So how do you determine that? Nelson doesn't agree with your view, is he in the wrong? It makes him feel good to laugh at others and cause them pain and humiliation, it makes him happy. Are you saying society should stop him from being himself and being happy?

Golden rule. Listen to Jesus. Would you like to be bullied? No. You have empathy. You know others would feel the same. Is it causing harm? Yes.

What's to decide? Just because someone gets pleasure from it is irrelevant. If it causes harm then it's immoral. Never been a big fan of consequentialism myself.