Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[durangodawood]

It’s also an objective fact that anyone with a sound mind looking at those facts would determine that Jim’s behavior is wrong because of the objective harm it caused.

Help us understand how/why you don’t think that equates to objective morality or even absolute morality where it’s always true that anyone with a sound mind would draw the same conclusion about Jim’s actions? We all (hopefully) have sound minds here.

Has it been stated yet exactly what you mean by objective morality? Pages have been wasted arguing at cross purposes about this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm seriously considering pulling the plug on this thread. The questions are becoming more nonsensical the longer it goes on...

Jim has been smoking dope all day.
He steals a bottle of whisky.
He drinks half of it.
He steals a car.
He drives off the road into a shop front and kills a pedestrian.

We have to determine the morality of his actions. What facts do you think are available to make that determination. Spoiler alert: They are the 5 statements directly above this paragraph.

No. You have to have an Ethical framework that you think provides a substantive and real stance and support for your moral evaluations.

Otherwise, we can just read A.J. Ayer all day and ignore all of the views on Philosophy of Law along with all of the talk about Moral Intuitions that float out and about.

There's a LOT that goes into that little word: "determine"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Has it been stated yet exactly what you mean by objective morality? Pages have been wasted arguing at cross purposes about this.

I think part of the problem here is that when some folks are referring to "objective morality" what they're really wanting and intending to refer to is "Absolute morality," which is something conceptually different. So, many here are talking past each other or perpendicularly to each other. It all kind of seems to intersect, but it isn't really doing so and we go in circles.

And this is what happens in a PLURALISTIC ETHICAL WORLD. So, we all need to get on some similar pages about what Ethics 'IS' before we can then talk about either objective morality or absolute morality.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

we go in circles

Just chiming in here with a very relevant rebuttal. Can't argue from circular reasoning if there's no circles .

This thread has broken me

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

View attachment 326344

Just chiming in here with a very relevant rebuttal. Can't argue from circular reasoning if there's no circles .

This thread has broken me

Ok that's enough. Back to hiding.

 

[Chriliman]

Has it been stated yet exactly what you mean by objective morality? Pages have been wasted arguing at cross purposes about this.

Morality that can be shown to benefit others and anyone who subscribes to it. Can it exist, or is it impossible?

 

[durangodawood]

Morality that can be shown to benefit anyone who subscribes to it. Can it exist, or is it impossible?

Oh wow. Thats really different from what most people mean by "objective morality" - which is more like "the idea that right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion"

(quote from What Is Objective Morality? - Verywell Mindhttps://www.verywellmind.com › Psychology › Theories)

You frame it in terms of benefit, and not right/wrong. I like that, as it comports with my sense that morality derives from objective facts about what makes for satisfying human lives in a social setting.

I do think it exists.

 

[Chriliman]

Oh wow. Thats really different from what most people mean by "objective morality" - which is more like "the idea that right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion"

(quote from What Is Objective Morality? - Verywell Mindhttps://www.verywellmind.com › Psychology › Theories)

You frame it in terms of benefit, and not right/wrong. I like that, as it comports with my sense that morality derives from objective facts about what makes for satisfying human lives in a social setting.

I do think it exists.

Cool! I mean, I still think there’s an argument that can be made to frame it in a sense of right/wrong and good/bad. It’d be something like the right/good way is the way that can be shown to benefit others and yourself and vise versa, the wrong/bad way is the way that can’t show that. It only shows a more self-seeking way that more or less ignores others.

 

[durangodawood]

Cool! I mean, I still think there’s an argument that can be made to frame it in a sense of right/wrong and good/bad. It’d be something like the right/good way is the way that can be shown to benefit others and yourself and vise versa, the wrong/bad way is the way that can’t show that. It only shows a more self-seeking way that more or less ignores others.

What shows that?

 

[Bradskii]

It's not [directly] relevant. But it is relevant [overall] for someone who claims they have "DEMANDS" of Christians to give an account for their rational thinking. Besides, I was offering this source to you gratis just as you did me with your source.

If you truly "DEMAND" that Christians give an account, then "DEMAND" implies that you have a vested and fair interest in understanding where the best arguments and/or the best outlooks among various Christians have been given. And then following through with integrity on your part with that interest and those demands requires that you actually do some of your own engagement of reading that might not be your favorite cup of tea.

As for what is relevant in this thread, I guess you missed that other little reference I gave to durangodawood. Of course, I know it wouldn't be fair of me to have expected you to have read each and every post in this thread. None of us likely has.

I already have a reasonable amount of literature that is, how shall I say, pro Christian already. Harrison, Trent Horn, Templeton and others already take up room on my bookshelf. But again, I am not that interested in theology per se. I want to know what your day to day Christian thinks about contemporary matters. Which is why I am here.

So the only thing I DEMAND is a fair hearing for my views and a reasonable discussion about theirs. Which, as you are aware, are varied, despite their common claim that morality is grounded in their belief in a God that dictates what form it should take. The theology behind that is largely irrelevant - I want to know how it impacts each individual on a practical level.

 

[Bradskii]

It’s also an objective fact that anyone with a sound mind looking at those facts would determine that Jim’s behavior is wrong because of the objective harm it caused.

'Firstly, I think what you're saying is that we would all agree that Jim's actions are immoral (anyone with a sound mind). Does that mean that if we have consensus on a moral matter then it becomes objective? I don't think that's a path we want to go down.

Secondly, If he was stone cold sober and swerved to avoid a cyclist, ran off the road and killed a pedestrian then it's still an objective fact that harm has been done. But most people might say that he's not even culpable, let alone acting immorally. So how to we get to an absolute immoral act from that?

 

[Bradskii]

No. You have to have an Ethical framework that you think provides a substantive and real stance and support for your moral evaluations.

How about 'we agree on the facts and make a decision based on them.' The first and most critical question being 'has harm been done.' If the answer to that is no, then we get another round in and talk about the game on Saturday. If it's yes, then we look at intent and the degree of culpability and give our personal opinions on the matter, discuss social expectations, reciprocal altruism, empathy, evolutionary psychology and absolute versus relative morality. Then get another round in and talk sport.

That you've never read any Aristotle or Rawls or haven't heard of Bentham or Stuart Mill is irrelevant.

 

[Bradskii]

Back to hiding.

Noted.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm seriously considering pulling the plug on this thread. The questions are becoming more nonsensical the longer it goes on...

Jim has been smoking dope all day.
He steals a bottle of whisky.
He drinks half of it.
He steals a car.
He drives off the road into a shop front and kills a pedestrian.

We have to determine the morality of his actions. What facts do you think are available to make that determination. Spoiler alert: They are the 5 statements directly above this paragraph.

He did 5 things I believe are wrong. But in order to claim those acts are objectively wrong, you have to provide proof that all of those acts are morally wrong. What proof do you have that killing someone the way Jim did is morally wrong? IOW where is it written getting drunk and killing some is wrong?

 

[Bradskii]

He did 5 things I believe are wrong. But in order to claim those acts are objectively wrong, you have to provide proof that all of those acts are morally wrong. What proof do you have that killing someone the way Jim did is morally wrong? IOW where is it written getting drunk and killing some is wrong?

I don't think that showing he acted immorally is difficult. Harm was caused. He was culpable. The problem I have is that a few people are saying that if it's that obvious (perhaps undeniable) then it must be absolute. In which case, all acts that they class as being immoral are therefore absolute. It means that there is no such thing as relative immorality. Which is absurd.

 

[Chriliman]

'Firstly, I think what you're saying is that we would all agree that Jim's actions are immoral (anyone with a sound mind). Does that mean that if we have consensus on a moral matter then it becomes objective? I don't think that's a path we want to go down.

If the consensus is based on the facts then what ground does anyone have to argue against that? None, right?

Secondly, If he was stone cold sober and swerved to avoid a cyclist, ran off the road and killed a pedestrian then it's still an objective fact that harm has been done. But most people might say that he's not even culpable, let alone acting immorally. So how to we get to an absolute immoral act from that?

Of course if you change the objective facts then the objective moral conclusion may change, but that doesn’t make it any less objective, does it? I think I’ve discuss this with you before and I proposed ‘objective relativism’, where the objective moral conclusion will change if the facts are different(relative to the facts).

Note: if the facts are ever misunderstood then objective moral conclusion isn’t reached.

I can see how this may seem dangerous, that people may think they have the facts and enforce morality based on that, when in reality, they misunderstand however subtly, but this rational fear shouldn’t dissuade us from the possibility of actually knowing the facts and basing our morality on that.

 

[Ken-1122]

If the consensus is based on the facts then what ground does anyone have to argue against that? None, right?

Outside of your personal opinion and beliefs, what evidence do you have that those actions were wrong?

 

[Bradskii]

If the consensus is based on the facts then what ground does anyone have to argue against that? None, right?

Of course if you change the objective facts then the objective moral conclusion may change, but that doesn’t make it any less objective, does it? I think I’ve discuss this with you before and I proposed ‘objective relativism’, where the objective moral conclusion will change if the facts are different(relative to the facts).

Note: if the facts are ever misunderstood then objective moral conclusion isn’t reached.

I can see how this may seem dangerous, that people may think they have the facts and enforce morality based on that, when in reality, they misunderstand however subtly, but this rational fear shouldn’t dissuade us from the possibility of actually knowing the facts and basing our morality on that.

Would this work with euthanasia for example? Or abortion or ssm? I guess in those cases then people would argue the facts of the matter. Which seems go be the bone of contention.

It was mentioned earlier that some of us were involved in a thread on morality some time ago. That ran on for over 150 pages. I read some parts of it last night and you simply wouldn't believe the difficulty in getting some people to accept the most basic of facts in order to to propose a hypothetical. It went on for post after post after post. And if there's no agreement on the facts of any given matter then there cannot be any agreement on the morality of it.

 

[Chriliman]

Outside of your personal opinion and beliefs, what evidence do you have that those actions were wrong?

If you don’t think you can use the facts(real facts) you believe to justify your moral conclusions then you don’t have any moral ground to stand on.

 

[rturner76]

Secular morality is authoritative in a democracy. Governments, where citizens have a vote, will not be ruled by any particular religion. They will be ruled by the conscience of the majority.