Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[YahuahSaves]

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.

Even if the guy told you he's dying of cancer, afraid of hospitals and can't bring himself to commit suicide?

"Whatever is necessary" to end your wife's suffering...does this include strangulation, or would you choose suffocation with a pillow instead?

 

[YahuahSaves]

Listen to Jesus

You can't use someone you don't believe exists to support your case.

What's to decide? Just because someone gets pleasure from it is irrelevant. If it causes harm then it's immoral

So BDSM? There are countless other examples I could use of one's personal happiness being paramount and what behaviours society as a whole, accepts or rejects.

 

[Ken-1122]

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

That is an opinion; not something grounded in fact

 

[Bradskii]

"Whatever is necessary" to end your wife's suffering...does this include strangulation, or would you choose suffocation with a pillow instead?

I was talking about the possibility of my wife having a painful, incurable disease and wanting to end her life. I'll thank you not to be flippant.

 

[Bradskii]

You can't use someone you don't believe exists to support your case.


So BDSM? There are countless other examples I could use of one's personal happiness being paramount and what behaviours society as a whole, accepts or rejects.

I think you are now arguing for the sake of it. Any reasonable person would have no need to ask either of those two questions as the answers are so plainly obvious. I am answering your questions politely, honestly and to the fullest of my ability. I'd appreciate similar responses.

 

[Bradskii]

This of course includes a lack of cohesion in morality, religion...

Three words that are rarely used in the same sentence.

But do we yet have an example of societal collapse? I might well agree with what you are saying but unless I know what form it takes...

 

[GenemZ]

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

We know each other. You're just trying to save face now.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

This sounds like problem with our multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-faith society. (Correct me if that is not in anyway a problem for you.) I learned we were part of a religious minority before I needed all of my fingers to display my age non-verbally. That has affected me ever since, including my strong support for religious freedoms and rejection of religious capture of the institutions of public society (especially government).

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.

I am under no such illusion. I am aware that at most 10% of Americans adults do not believe in a god and most hold unjustified spiritual, supernatural and religious beliefs. Globally it is harder to determine given religious oppression, state religious positions and uneven surveying, though the upper limit is probably similar.

The shift is not from theism to atheism, but rather from traditional and established religions to syncretic and idiosyncratic forms of religiosity.

This is reflected by the number of people identifying their religion as "none" (close to 30% in the US). Some of them have become non-believers, some have lost the explicit christian elements of their beliefs (some have not), others haven't really changed their beliefs but no longer choose a specific religious identity.

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.

We disagree here. I think the problem is that moral authoritativeness is an illusion. I'd like our society to come to grips with that, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon. For now, I am satisfied to just inject that notion into circulation.

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.).

I've seen the trauma people suffer when they realize they can no longer justify their old religious beliefs. It is a person-by-person process that takes time. Even if I could snap my fingers and have half of believers lose faith, I wouldn't. They wouldn't be ready for it. Instead, I'd just like the normalization of non-believers in society.

The atheists of today just say, "We don't need an authoritative moral fabric!"

I don't care what these nameless atheists say. It is not what I said. Perhaps you didn't realize it. I'd like us to realize that "authoritative moral fabrics" are an illusion and deal with that.

 

[YahuahSaves]

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.

So your whole argument surrounds whether true morality can be determined universally? That it isn't inherent in nature?

 

[YahuahSaves]

I was talking about the possibility of my wife having a painful, incurable disease and wanting to end her life. I'll thank you not to be flippant.

It was a serious question. Would you actually end your wife's life if she were suffering or would you want a doctor to do it?

 

[Bradskii]

So your whole argument surrounds whether true morality can be determined universally? That it isn't inherent in nature?

No. I suggested that objective morality (if that's what you meant by 'true morality') couldn't depend on a vote in case you might have thought to propose it. Facts are objective. Morality ain't.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Any reasonable person would have no need to ask either of those two questions as the answers are so plainly obvious.

How is it plainly obvious though, if morality is truly subjective? I'm trying to get to the root here. You can always go back to my question about zoos and we can go from there.

 

[Bradskii]

It was a serious question. Would you actually end your wife's life if she were suffering or would you want a doctor to do it?

It certainly wasn't previously asked in anything like a respectful manner. To the question above, it would depend on the laws governing it. But I'd prefer to do it.

 

[YahuahSaves]

But do we yet have an example of societal collapse?

Just look at history and all the people who used subjective morality to justify personal gain.

 

[Bradskii]

How is it plainly obvious though, if morality is truly subjective?

It isn't obvious. It needs some thought to realise it.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Facts are objective. Morality ain't

But that's the point. How are agreements on morality made between people without facts?

 

[Bradskii]

Just look at history and all the people who used subjective morality to justify personal gain.

Thanks, but if someone suggests that western society is collapsing now because of a lack of authorative morality, then I want to know exactly what he means by that so I can decide whether to agree or not. Something tells me that Zip means that society is heading in a direction he doesn't like. But we can find that out when he tells us.

 

[YahuahSaves]

To the question above, it would depend on the laws governing it. But I'd prefer to do it

I'd be surprised if you actually could when push-comes-to-shove - that was the reason for my putting the question blatantly. It was intended to be visual. Killing someone is actually quite a violent act.

 

[Bradskii]

But that's the point. How are agreements on morality made between people without facts?

What? What do you mean 'without facts'? What moral discussion doesn't have some facts on which to base a decision?

 

[YahuahSaves]

but if someone suggests that western society is collapsing now because of a lack of authorative morality,

It's actually the "authority" that's the problem. Personally, I was talking about economic collapse in my post.