Establishing Secular Morality

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm not trying to re-hash my old thread so I thought I would try and do it more directly through questions and get your guys actual opinions & reasoning rather than writing a bunch of posts that amount to epistemological essays. Don't get me wrong, I'll still object and expect you guys to do the same for mine and other people's arguments; but this time I'll try and do it with more of a leaning towards discussion.
Try to keep mocking to a minimum, it serves nobody and only degrades your own arguments. Therein, it's ok to say "I don't know" or "good point" to one another; but in the same token it's ok to doggedly pursue your point or points if you think the other person is missing it or are mistaken. It's ok if the thread narrows down or veers off a bit into other topics like subjective morality, subjective truth (it doesn't exist ) and other areas but just try not to derail it entirely and keep it within the parameters of what the thread is about as much as you can. Now to the thread:

1. Why is your conception of what's right and wrong authoritative over another person's?
2. How do you impart value to behaviour without question begging and assuming that human life or its continuance is of inherent value?
3. How do you impart value without assuming that it's true that certain stimulus is good and certain stimulus is bad?
4. What's your standard that allows you to evaluate and impart value (i.e. it's true compassion is good & it's true torturing innocent people is bad)?
5. Why is this standard authoritative over another person's?

I'll just post a couple of examples to avoid some early arguments & mistakes:

"Evolution determines why anything we think is good, is good; therefore, that which propagates our genes the best, is that which is good"
This is to suffer the same problem of lacking a justification for an authoritative standard which confers values independent of a person's belief (i.e. #2 & #5). To simplify the previous statement; a society that succeeds through rape and considers rape good would have the same justification for the truthfulness of its morals as you would if you exist in a society that succeeds through compassion and sees rape as abhorrent. To make comparisons between the actions of rape and compassion is to ascribe value through the use of an authoritative standard that exists independent of the opposing societies beliefs about what is good (a standard that fails to be established in a secular paradigm).

"Evolution has determined what we think is moral"
The existence of the morals brought about by evolution is not a justification for why I (or anyone) need to follow them (i.e. #1, #5).

"Why not just treat each other how we ourselves want to be treated?"
All Christians agree with this in accordance with Christian Theistic Theology & Epistemology. Yahweh is why truth is considered the truth within our framework of belief; He alone is self-existent and is the unmoved mover that is the justification for the existence & sustained existence of any thing, including immaterial morals. Notwithstanding evil, which is characterised as that which is not of Yahweh and therein by nature/necessity was created and is sustained by His creatures through rebellion & disobedience. The problem is the secular framework; within it morals are not inherently true so please don't treat them as such. Within a secular paradigm specific morals and their reasons to follow them need to be established as real and true (i.e. #1, #2, #3, #4 & #5).

If you want to dig down into specific reasoning or see it extrapolated, here are a some good posts from the old thread that also include the opposing views. For consent reasons I'll link only my posts but they are in nature responses so they include the opponents response too:
The old thread
Subjective morality (Main)
Subjective morality (peripheral 1)
Subjective morality (peripheral 2)
Subjective morality (peripheral 3)
Subjective truth doesn't exist
It's ok to dust off your sandals and move on

Edit: For clarity's sake; any appeal to an authoritative use of morality either through disagreement (saying a certain moral stance is wrong) or agreement (affirming the truth of the presuppositions used to establish a moral stance) is to require a transcendent justification (i.e. one that is independent of either parties' beliefs) for the propositions' truthfulness. Either through an appeal to a standard by which to evaluate specific behaviours or to the truth of the presuppositions used to establish any kind of moral reasoning. Hence the thread title of "Establishing" and the use of the word 'transcendent'.

Please try your best to treat each other and the arguments with charity. God bless .
"Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another."-Proverbs 27:17

 

[Bradskii]

1. Why is your conception of what's right and wrong authoritative over another person's?

It's not necessarily. If it's a matter of opinion. But if it's a factual matter, then evidence will generally support one argument over another.

1. How do you impart value to behaviour without question begging and assuming that human life or its continuance is of inherent value?

Value is relative to the person who is doing the valuing. See above as to how we decide what's right or wrong. And the value on human life - one's own in particular, is in-built (and likewise to close family, then to a lesser extent as the relationship becomes more distant) . I say by evolution. Someone else may say God. A third person might say the first is the process that the second used.

1. How do you impart value without assuming that it's true that certain stimulus is good and certain stimulus is bad?

If harm is caused then it's generally wrong (with obvious exceptions). I grew up in the 'If it's good just do it' era. I wouldn't recommend it as a rule...but the corollary generally holds.

1. What's your standard that allows you to evaluate and impart value (i.e. it's true compassion is good & it's true torturing innocent people is bad)?

Empathy. Plus any variation of the Golden Rule.

1. Why is this standard authoritative over another person's?

Same reason. If the other person wants to be treated well, then they have to treat me well. It's not compulsory to do so. It's not authoritative.

"Evolution determines why anything we think is good, is good; therefore, that which propagates our genes the best, is that which is good"\

Generally speaking, what's good is what works. If sharing food in a group situation helps the group to survive, then sharing is, by definition, good. Evolution will remove from the gene pool that which is bad - i.e. that which doesn't help the propagation of the group (or species). In that sense, evolution determines that which we term 'good'. It might then happen that as societies develop we term that which is good to be moral.

"Evolution has determined what we think is moral"

See above.

"Why not just treat each other how we ourselves want to be treated?"

We should. Reciprocal altruism (an evolutionary means of describing the golden rule) has been critical in the survival of our species. It's common in all philosophical and religious standards of moral behaviour. It works. Jesus reminded us of that.

All Christians agree with this in accordance with Christian Theistic Theology & Epistemology. Yahweh is why truth is considered the truth within our framework of belief; He alone is self-existent and is the unmoved mover that is the justification for the existence & sustained existence of any thing, including immaterial morals.

The question might then be what might happen if there was some virus that removed all religious beliefs. Would all sense of morality also disappear? If not then it stands to reason that we can develop it ourselves. If it did, then are we to think that the only thing stopping Christians from immoral behaviour is their belief in God?

Now all that was quite brief and not all my points will be valid for all situations. Generally all moral decisions needs to be evaluated on their merit.

Cheers, TB.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm sorry I can't respond to all of your points due to the how long it takes for me to write and think through all of this but please don't feel the need to address everything that I say as well. I have trouble with being verbose at the best of times. I'll try and keep my responses to what I believe to be the crux of the issues/irreconcilable points of difference. I absolutely respect the time and effort required on your part and will try to honour that as well .

Generally speaking, what's good is what works. If sharing food in a group situation helps the group to survive, then sharing is, by definition, good. Evolution will remove from the gene pool that which is bad - i.e. that which doesn't help the propagation of the group (or species). In that sense, evolution determines that which we term 'good'. It might then happen that as societies develop we term that which is good to be moral.

This is what a large portion of Christians disagree with. The idea that 'what works' is the standard or genesis for moral reasoning can be used to justify absolutely heinous propositions. Like the rape example I used before; if it's proven as a success to be 'what works' (see orangutans) then you could argue for the goodness of rape. This is because 'what works' would not be an absolute but instead it would be context dependent. So for a human example; if lopping off heads and hands like the Islamic state do 'works' for their society and if combined with their polygamy facilitates reproductive success, then there's nothing inherently wrong with lopping off heads and hands. If I was to disagree with their morality I would need to a) subscribe to the reality of morals being transcendent over our reasoning (i.e. they're absolutes) or b)have to just disagree based upon the morals of my society because our context for 'what works' is different.

The question might then be what might happen if there was some virus that removed all religious beliefs. Would all sense of morality also disappear? If not then it stands to reason that we can develop it ourselves. If it did, then are we to think that the only thing stopping Christians from immoral behaviour is their belief in God?

We could and absolutely do develop the beliefs/morals ourselves (that's considered a major issue in Christianity and is marred by sin); however in order to determine if those beliefs are right or wrong we need to first believe that it's possible that moral absolutes exist. Absolutes are unchanging and exist independent of any one persons beliefs about them; therein they're transcendent (which is what I mean when I say transcendental standard). However, if it is the case that morality is derived solely from personal experience of stimulus then it remains impossible to establish any kind of authoritative justification for specific morals. So to answer the question about the mind virus; the sense of morality may go away but what is moral and what is not moral remains established through the transcendental parameters set on behaviour through creation. In the same way your sense of sight going away does not mean that the rest of the world doesn't exist anymore.

If harm is caused then it's generally wrong (with obvious exceptions). I grew up in the 'If it's good just do it' era. I wouldn't recommend it as a rule...but the corollary generally holds.

I don't mean this with a spirit of disrespect but disagreement; I would see this as somewhat arbitrary. I understand and agree with you that harm in general is wrong too due to the inherent value of human life. But I would argue that because life itself is not inherently valuable within a secular paradigm that denies the transcendent (more literally; the source for the real existence of immaterial things like morals, logic, natural laws & etc), that your reasoning for why harm is generally wrong can be used for saying why it's right. Especially so if it's based on an individuals preferences.

Sorry if this is too much and like I said before, please don't feel the need to respond to every point.

Cheers, TB.

God bless .

P.S. If you can't respond immediately then that's fine, I won't treat it as some kind of triumph. I'm not trying to establish myself or smash arguments. Please respond or don't respond however and whenever it pleases.

Edit: Phrasing, clarification and grammar. My mind goes too fast for my hands sometimes.

 

[Bradskii]

please don't feel the need to address everything that I say as well.

I'm not a big fan of multiple answers and questions in one post either.

This is what a large portion of Christians disagree with. The idea that 'what works' is the standard or genesis for moral reasoning can be used to justify absolutely heinous propositions. Like the rape example I used before; if it's proven as a success to be 'what works' (see orangutans) then you could argue for the goodness of rape. This is because 'what works' would not be an absolute but instead it would be context dependent.

I did say 'generally speaking' that what works is good. That gets us quite some distance to a moral position. But we have a sense of justice (evolution v God again, or God plus evolution if you like). Fairness in a more basic sense. Not being fair, generally speaking, is bad. You want to be treated fairly and so you should treat others fairly. So severe punishment should be reserved for severe crimes. The punishment should be enough to discourage the offence and no more. Else you could find yourself losing a hand to steal bread for your starving child.

Fairness (and hence justice) allows societies to evolve. If there was none, then we're back to each person considering nobody but themselves. Share your food and you get nothing in return then you lose out. So you don't then share and neither does anyone else because it's a losing game and the system tends towards collapse.

The Evolution of Justice

AbstractWhere does the human sense of justice come from? An emerging view in the sciences is that the biological foundation of humans’ systems of justice and fa

academic.oup.com

'...the foundations of fairness are evolutionarily ancient and based on the need to maintain a relative balance among cooperative partners. Many species appear to recognize when they receive less than a conspecific receives after a cooperative interaction. Humans and a few other species have expanded this to recognizing when they are relatively advantaged. Humans, with their relatively advanced cognition, are the only species to develop a full sense of fairness and possibly because of this, in combination with language, are the only species to have a sense of justice.'

So fairness and justice are 'good'.

And if someone is raped, then obviously harm has been done. It is therefore wrong.

So to answer the question about the mind virus; the sense of morality may go away but what is moral and what is not moral remains established through the transcendental parameters set on behaviour through creation.

Or through the evolutionary process. And again, if you want to class that as one of God's 'tools' that He used to get us here, then that's fine with me.

I don't mean this with a spirit of disrespect but disagreement; I would see this as somewhat arbitrary. I understand and agree with you that harm in general is wrong too due to the inherent value of human life. But I would argue that because life itself is not inherently valuable within a secular paradigm...

It is valuable in a secular paradigm. Atheists run out of burning buildings just as quickly as Christians do. And people were running from danger and doing their utmost to avoid being killed since there have been people. And actually a very, very long time before that. It's an inbuilt biological feature that all organisms have. Even bacteria sense danger and avoid it. And you can't get much more secular than bacteria.

Bacterial danger sensing

Here we propose that bacteria detect and respond to threats posed by other bacteria via an innate immune-like process that we term danger sensing. We find support for this contention by reexamining existing literature from the perspective that intermicrobial ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

'We conclude that many bacteria possess danger sensing pathways composed of a danger signal receptor and corresponding signal transduction mechanism that regulate pathways important for survival in the presence of the perceived competitor.'

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm not a big fan of multiple answers and questions in one post either.

Thank you, I'll try and keep this in mind when responding. If I don't answer a question which pertains to your argument that you want answered then please re-iterate it again in a response. But like I said before, don't feel the obligation to respond at all if you don't want to. If we reach an impasse, which we very well may, then it may be prudent to let our discussion stand and have others pick it apart rather than dragging it out and saying the same thing over and over. Though that has its uses too.

'...the foundations of fairness are evolutionarily ancient and based on the need to maintain a relative balance among cooperative partners. Many species appear to recognize when they receive less than a conspecific receives after a cooperative interaction. Humans and a few other species have expanded this to recognizing when they are relatively advantaged. Humans, with their relatively advanced cognition, are the only species to develop a full sense of fairness and possibly because of this, in combination with language, are the only species to have a sense of justice.'

So fairness and justice are 'good'.

And if someone is raped, then obviously harm has been done. It is therefore wrong.

This is where the crux is again. I understand the establishing of the existence of morality within a secular paradigm through evolution. But it's existence is not a 'why' I 'should' do something. So in short; it's impossible in this situation to derive an ought from an is. So a rapist would say "yeah I caused harm for the victim, but I was successful by the reckoning of evolution". Of course the victim would disagree and be right to do so, but they would disagree on the basis of their "relatively advanced cognition", not on the basis that rape is evil. I think we may have different understandings of evolution which is causing this.
It's my understanding that evolution itself is blind (as argued by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker) and only cares about the propagation of genetic material, and what would be deemed good under the system would be that which is successful at said propagation. So the disagreement of why the rape is wrong would have to come from it's usefulness, not from it's evilness. But even then there exists no transcendent framework to say "that which is useful is good and therefore you must do that which is good". Only "that which is useful is considered to be good, but what is considered to be evil is dependent upon context".

It is valuable in a secular paradigm. Atheists run out of burning buildings just as quickly as Christians do.

Yes but if I was to use this as a moral absolute then all suicide would be considered immoral on the basis that survival in order to propagate genetic material is the arbiter of right and wrong. So the value here again (and later in your quote about bacteria) assumes that there's some inherent value in survival and therefore we should heed our senses in this instance. Or rather, that it is right to heed our senses in this instance. But the problem is that's a non-sequitur. You're making a leap in logic that requires a justification. Just because evolution determines it's good or valuable to survive, does not mean that we should survive.

The existence of the process through which morality exists or came about within evolution, does not provide a reason for following behaviour that would be in accordance with the process. So while rape may be wrong on the grand scale, there exists a situation in which it may be considered right in order to propagate genetic material. As apposed to universally evil at all times.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes but if I was to use this as a moral absolute then all suicide
*snip*

Why would you do this? Those of us who are secular, by and large, don't believe in moral absolutes.

The survival of a social species is cooperative effort. As long as the species thrives, why should a rare suicide matter.

I run from a burning building because I want to survive. I do NOT do it for the species. It happens that if I live long enough to procreate then I've contributed to the species surviving. If enough people get out of burning buildings, the species does survive.

There are many ways to contribute to survival. We, as a cooperative social species, have determined that rape is not one of the those ways whether or not DNA is passed on.

The only ought is that we cooperate and that ought is build into us through evolution. (And yes, of course, there are those that don't. But we expect that since the sum of random variables tends to a bell-curve.)

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Why would you do this? Those of us who are secular, by and large, don't believe in moral absolutes.
*SNIP* (my scissors are bigger)

That's the issue that doesn't allow for an individuals moral preferences to be authoritative over another persons.

The survival of a social species is cooperative effort. As long as the species thrives, why should a rare suicide matter.

I run from a burning building because I want to survive. I do NOT do it for the species. It happens that if I live long enough to procreate then I've contributed to the species surviving. If enough people get out of burning buildings, the species does survive.

There are many ways to contribute to survival. We, as a cooperative social species, have determined that rape is not one of the those ways whether or not DNA is passed on.

However, if there existed a society in which they considered rape to be one of those ways; would it make it good? If you don't like the rape example (tbh I'm tired of saying the word rape) lets use cannibalism instead. If we are to use evolution, the only justification that exists to deny why cannibalism which is practised by an opposing society is wrong is personal preference. There exists no transcendent standard by which to condemn the practise, to say that it is wrong for this tribe which within it's social bounds considers it to be good. Therein they can't be wrong, only different.

The only ought is that we cooperate and that ought is build into us through evolution. (And yes, of course, there are those that don't. But we expect that since the sum of random variables tends to a bell-curve.)

If your argument is that morals are by nature arbitrary and there exists no reason to follow the ought built in from evolution (apart from individual desire of course), then I would have to agree with you that it is indeed the logical conclusion of a secular morality.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's the issue that doesn't allow for an individuals moral preferences to be authoritative over another persons.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't think I have any desire that my preferences should be authoritative over anyone. What I wish is that those with whom I interact come to an agreement on how to behave toward one another. Fortunately, most of what we need to "agree" on is built in.

However, if there existed a society in which they considered rape to be one of those ways; would it make it good? If you don't like the rape example (tbh I'm tired of saying the word rape) lets use cannibalism instead. If we are to use evolution, the only justification that exists to deny why cannibalism which is practised by an opposing society is wrong is personal preference. There exists no transcendent standard by which to condemn the practise, to say that it is wrong for this tribe which within it's social bounds considers it to be good. Therein they can't be wrong, only different.

Rape is a better example since at least DNA is passed on. I can't imagine a circumstance where cannibalism furthers the survival of the species of humans. A female praying mantis eats its mate after sex. Is it wrong? Is it immoral? No.

But we haven't evolved to do that.

Rape however has not always been considered wrong -- at least in particular circumstances. As Genghis Khan conquered a large portion of the world, he and his men raped all along the way. Did they think they were immoral? No. They were raping the conquered people. It was expected behavior, even encouraged behavior. Now, if you were to rape Genghis' spouse, you should expect to die in horrible ways.

So, yes, there could be a society that could exist (because they have existed) that considers rape good. And? And, now ours doesn't.

That's the point. Morals are not absolute. And even things we consider "absolutely" immoral now were not immoral previously. And just because I find it immoral now, doesn't mean that Genghis should agree.

That we want all people now and in the future to agree with us now doesn't entail either that they will or that they should.

However uncomfortable the fact makes one feel, morality changes as society changes. That I could wish all societies would follow my morals, they haven't and they won't.

If your argument is that morals are by nature arbitrary and there exists no reason to follow the ought built in from evolution (apart from individual desire of course), then I would have to agree with you that it is indeed the logical conclusion of a secular morality.

But my argument is that morality is not arbitrary, especially not by nature. It is because of nature/evolution that morality exists. It exists as a feature that encourages the survival of our species. It's not arbitrary at all. And, in the end, it may fail; we may and probably will go extinct.

The reason, if reason be the right word, to follow morality is because we cannot but follow morality.

Morality simply is. Empathy, as @Bradskii noted, is a useful rubric for determining which actions are useful to the species.

IMHO, the only reason to even discuss morality is to have a feedback loop that stabilizes the circuit.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

It's getting a bit late here so I'm running out of sufficient brainpower to respond thoroughly but I'll do my best and try to be succinct and coalesce your response.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't think I have any desire that my preferences should be authoritative over anyone. What I wish is that those with whom I interact come to an agreement on how to behave toward one another. Fortunately, most of what we need to "agree" on is built in.

I'm getting at the legal system which is applied morality. Which under a secular morality would be codified arbitrary desire imposed upon others without a justification for doing so apart from a social agreement, which too would lack a justification or ought for anyone to agree with it. There exists no justice, only that which is perceived to be justice based on the current society. So slavery itself would not be a universal evil that applies to all men everywhere because the reasons used to justify a universal moral stance that's authoritative on every individual, needs to be by nature transcendent (it's true independent of belief about it).

Rape is a better example since at least DNA is passed on. I can't imagine a circumstance where cannibalism furthers the survival of the species of humans.

The ability to survive in order to reproduce? Ritual? Cannibalism was practised up until recently (maybe still is) in the Indonesian islands and in the grand scheme of time put forward in an evolutionary framework, that's like a breath ago.

But my argument is that morality is not arbitrary, especially not by nature. It is because of nature/evolution that morality exists. It exists as a feature that encourages the survival of our species. It's not arbitrary at all. And, in the end, it may fail; we may and probably will go extinct.

The reason, if reason be the right word, to follow morality is because we cannot but follow morality.

Morality simply is. Empathy, as @Bradskii noted, is a useful rubric for determining which actions are useful to the species.

IMHO, the only reason to even discuss morality is to have a feedback loop that stabilizes the circuit.

The reason for morality existing may not be arbitrary, but the reasons to follow the oughts that come forth from nature absolutely are. There exists no reason to survive or why you should survive, only the desire to continue to. "The existence of the process through which morality exists or came about within evolution, does not provide a reason for following behaviour that would be in accordance with the process.". To assume it does, does not logically follow.

 

[Yttrium]

First I'll point out that I'm not at all religious.

Why is your conception of what's right and wrong authoritative over another person's?

It isn't. Each person's morals are different, and as a society, we come to a consensus on ethical standards and write them into law.

How do you impart value to behaviour without question begging and assuming that human life or its continuance is of inherent value?

I don't want to be killed. I don't want my stuff stolen. Etc. I see that other people generally feel the same way. I note that I am not going to be able to survive well on my own, and I'll need to work with others to ensure a livelihood. Cooperative behavior will benefit everyone.

How do you impart value without assuming that it's true that certain stimulus is good and certain stimulus is bad?

The Golden Rule. I treat others the way I would like to be treated.

What's your standard that allows you to evaluate and impart value (i.e. it's true compassion is good & it's true torturing innocent people is bad)?

The Golden Rule.

1. Why is this standard authoritative over another person's?

It isn't. We'll have to negotiate to find a mutually acceptable compromise, if we can.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm getting at the legal system which is applied morality. Which under a secular morality would be codified arbitrary desire imposed upon others without a justification for doing so apart from a social agreement, which too would lack a justification or ought for anyone to agree with it.

The social agreement is sufficient justification. We don't need any other. If one doesn't like it, one is in jail or moves to a different society (or chokes under the yoke of oppression -- I'm sure such a one would see it that way.)

Social agreement isn't arbitrary. It's what society sees as the mechanism that makes it function smoothly (one hopes).

There exists no justice, only that which is perceived to be justice based on the current society.

Well, yeah. Justice isn't a thing. It's a concept. There are no particles of justice that can be measured. One of my favorites quotes:

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather​

(Bolding added)

So slavery itself would not be a universal evil that applies to all men everywhere because the reasons used to justify a universal moral stance that's authoritative on every individual, needs to be by nature transcendent (it's true independent of belief about it).

But it isn't universal, is it?

We here and now think slavery is wrong. I think it is wrong. I think history shows us that that practice fails to make society livable, workable, and stable. And, I think if you and I lived in a different time and place, we'd think slavery was moral. (I'd also like to think that'd I'd think it was wrong, but that is too much pride.)

The ability to survive in order to reproduce? Ritual? Cannibalism was practised up until recently (maybe still is) in the Indonesian islands and in the grand scheme of time put forward in an evolutionary framework, that's like a breath ago.

Fair point. But, I'd argue that it's rituals that make life feel like it has regularities and thus stability.

The reason for morality existing may not be arbitrary, but the reasons to follow the oughts that come forth from nature absolutely are. There exists no reason to survive or why you should survive, only the desire to continue to. "The existence of the process through which morality exists or came about within evolution, does not provide a reason for following behaviour that would be in accordance with the process.". To assume it does, does not logically follow.

No. We do "morality" because of what we are--a social species and thus a moral species. An alien species would find our morality no more transcendent than we do that of Emperor Penguins.

 

[essentialsaltes]

1. Why is your conception of what's right and wrong authoritative over another person's?

You know the little cartoon device of having a little angel and devil on your shoulders telling you what's right and wrong? They only talk to the person whose shoulders they sit on. They aren't authoritative over anybody else.

As others have noted, this personal conscience or sense of morality is related to, but quite distinct from, the rules of law we use to organize society.

1. How do you impart value to...

By valueing it. We all impart value to colorful bits of paper and hunks of metal stamped with faces. They have no inherent value, separate from humankind. They have value because we place value on them. Value is something that requires a subjective valuer or evaluator. But that is all it is.

 

[Bradskii]

This is where the crux is again. I understand the establishing of the existence of morality within a secular paradigm through evolution. But it's existence is not a 'why' I 'should' do something. So in short; it's impossible in this situation to derive an ought from an is. So a rapist would say "yeah I caused harm for the victim, but I was successful by the reckoning of evolution". Of course the victim would disagree and be right to do so, but they would disagree on the basis of their "relatively advanced cognition", not on the basis that rape is evil. I think we may have different understandings of evolution which is causing this.
It's my understanding that evolution itself is blind (as argued by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker) and only cares about the propagation of genetic material, and what would be deemed good under the system would be that which is successful at said propagation. So the disagreement of why the rape is wrong would have to come from it's usefulness, not from it's evilness.

There are three levels at which we operate. The evolutionary one - where we act 'instinctively'. The personal one - where we consciously decide what we prefer to do. And the societal one - where we, as a group, have decided what is best for the group (you'd include a fourth - God, but from my perspective, that goes into the third. It's what, or who, a society, or members of that society have decided is the ultimate arbiter of morality).

All of these are often in conflict. So you might suggest that rape is evolutionary beneficial so why don't we all do it? Well, it's not because it's not evolutionary beneficial. Read this and be depressed:

A third of male university students say they would rape a woman

A significant proportion of men who said they would force a woman to have sex did not recognise it as rape

www.independent.co.uk

What one third of those brutally honest students were saying is that the evolutionary drive to spread their genes would be the number one option if they could ignore the other two restraints. They are saying that they would assault a woman if, to some extent, they could ignore the second restriction, the voice of reason that personally tells them not to do it (because of the golden rule, which is evolutionary driven but is nevertheless a personal decision) and that the third restriction - society, wasn't a consideration.

Yes but if I was to use this as a moral absolute then all suicide would be considered immoral on the basis that survival in order to propagate genetic material is the arbiter of right and wrong. So the value here again (and later in your quote about bacteria) assumes that there's some inherent value in survival and therefore we should heed our senses in this instance. Or rather, that it is right to heed our senses in this instance. But the problem is that's a non-sequitur. You're making a leap in logic that requires a justification. Just because evolution determines it's good or valuable to survive, does not mean that we should survive.

I didn't say that because something is beneficial then as an individual we should do it. As regards survival, it's important at a species level but entirely inconsequential at an individual level. The general tendency is to stay alive and not die. As I said, that's biologically universal. Without fail. But you can override that instinct if you want. It's up to the individual. I don't see suicide as being immoral.

The existence of the process through which morality exists or came about within evolution, does not provide a reason for following behaviour that would be in accordance with the process. So while rape may be wrong on the grand scale, there exists a situation in which it may be considered right in order to propagate genetic material. As apposed to universally evil at all times.

And it might be a reason at the evolutionary level. But not on the personal or societal level.

 

[LoveDivine]

I wanted to address your first point about one person's conception of morality being authoritative over another's code of morality. I would say that no one individuals sense of morality can be deemed to be more authoritative than another's sense of morality. There has to be a standard greater than your own individual sense of right and wrong.

Often times throughout history an individual or group of individuals have imposed their values or morals on others through force. In that sense, one could say that the individual who has the most power has the most authority to decide what actions will be deemed good and what will be deemed bad. So many laws and rules have been developed within societies by the whims of dictators. The power to force your values upon others does not "prove," that your sense of morality is higher.

Can you definitely prove that your code of morality is superior to another's code, simply by getting the majority to agree with your definition of morality? No. If that were the case, then we would need to conclude that the holocaust of the Jews was morally acceptable since the majority of Germans went along/ supported Hitler's ideology. Today the majority would condemn such actions.

To be able to prove that your moral code supercedes another's sense of right and wrong, you would need to be able to prove that each action you deem to be good/ beneficial when taken to its logical conclusion is always the best choice in a given situation. The same holds true for negative actions. The difficulty here is that morality is not always so cut and dry. We are all familiar with the term ethical dilemma. Some actions in and of themselves may be good, but could actually be argued to be harmful in some situations. An example would be murder. Most would agree that it is wrong to kill someone. Many would be divided in their opinions if asked if it was morally right to kill someone to protect another. Good arguments could be made to support each side. Human beings with limited intelligence and understanding cannot be expected to have all the answers. One can be " more right " than his neighbor and make more sound arguments than others and still not fully grasp all the variables or nuances.

I would argue that it makes sense logically that a being or deity who is more powerful, more intelligent, more loving, etc than all the humans on earth has to set the standard and be the moral authority of the universe. You can't have any standard of morality if it is left up to equals (humans) to express their own opinions and seek their own interests. The only way you can have any true moral authority is to have a being who sets the moral code based on what will benefit the entire universe. A being whose sense of right and wrong is not biased by personal experiences or what benefits them. A being who has disinterested love for all. Who created the universe and set the laws of morality in place to benefit the whole of humanity.

 

[Bradskii]

The reason for morality existing may not be arbitrary, but the reasons to follow the oughts that come forth from nature absolutely are. There exists no reason to survive or why you should survive, only the desire to continue to. "The existence of the process through which morality exists or came about within evolution, does not provide a reason for following beha

The reason to survive (an evolutionary one to maintain the species), causes the desire (I don't want to die). Obviously, if the building is on fire you run out. You don't stand there with the flames around you thinking about what you 'ought' to do. It's not applicable.

But if we take stealing as an example, it has been evolutionary beneficial to encompass a version of the golden rule, but it's not instinctive in the same way as running out of the building. You can override the golden rule and steal as much as you want in a way that you cannot override the need to escape the flames. So in the case of stealing, because people can and will do it, we need to encourage people not to do it in case they think they could be an exception. So we 'ought' to discourage it by means of shame, ostracization, punishment etc.

 

[Bradskii]

I would argue that it makes sense logically that a being or deity who is more powerful, more intelligent, more loving, etc than all the humans on earth has to set the standard and be the moral authority of the universe. You can't have any standard of morality if it is left up to equals (humans) to express their own opinions and seek their own interests. The only way you can have any true moral authority is to have a being who sets the moral code based on what will benefit the entire universe. A being whose sense of right and wrong is not biased by personal experiences or what benefits them. A being who has disinterested love for all. Who created the universe and set the laws of morality in place to benefit the whole of humanity.

But then you have the problem as to which deity. And if we can get people agreed on that, then what interpretation of that deity's morality should we listen to? And who has the authority to give it? If I were a Christian, then the only person who would make that decision - who could make that decision, is me.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

But then you have the problem as to which deity. And if we can get people agreed on that, then what interpretation of that deity's morality should we listen to? And who has the authority to give it? If I were a Christian, then the only person who would make that decision - who could make that decision, is me.

Thank you for your thoughtful posts Brad but I feel like if I was to respond to the others it would just be me re-phrasing my same argument because I believe the main point of contention which is epistemological in nature, is still assumed as inherent within your paradigm which relies upon materialism/naturalism in order to establish truth.

To your point though there's only one Deity that has the attributes which justifies the necessary presuppositions for things like inductive reasoning (wikipedia has a good article about "the problem of induction"), causality, the uniformity of nature & etc. The mere existence of the universe in which Polytheists set their stage is taken as an unjustified belief that is never established (i.e. it's assumed as always existing). The claims of Monotheism are unique to be sure, but the claims of Yahweh are even moreso and His attributes are what the epistemology of science and it's proofs, which rest on inductive reasoning, are based on. So while you could go "what about Islam?" (as jews share our epistemology), this would then become a debate about the reason why Islam is false and would turn into a history & theological debate to show why their conception of God was distorted.

A display of the reasoning I'm talking about regarding God's attributes was done by Aquinas very well in his second way: “There is no case known (neither, indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which would be impossible.". He thereby later goes on to established why an unmoved mover is necessary in order to establish causation. However, in this one or his third way, can't remember, he does so through arguing based on the sustained existence of all things. So a causation which is outside of time and space. There's not too many other Deity's that have those claims of being outside of time and space while forming and sustaining all things, which narrows the field down significantly.

God bless

 

[Bradskii]

A display of the reasoning I'm talking about regarding God's attributes was done by Aquinas very well in his second way:

Maybe we should agree that my response and the post to which it was addressed was off topic. I don't think we need to discuss the existence of God as we are looking at determining a secular morality.

 

[public hermit]

The social agreement is sufficient justification. We don't need any other. If one doesn't like it, one is in jail or moves to a different society (or chokes under the yoke of oppression -- I'm sure such a one would see it that way.)

Social agreement isn't arbitrary. It's what society sees as the mechanism that makes it function smoothly (one hopes).

I tend to agree. Moral claims cannot be purely subjective, otherwise we're back at the "state of nature" where it's every person for themselves. What has proven effective is inter-subjective agreement. Every scientific claim that is widely accepted has become so through inter-subjective agreement. The social contract assumes we all agree that we do better working together than separately, and that cooperation entails we submit to the weal of the group.Thats not always perfect but it's better than chaos.

The problem with trying to ground morals in God (and I do believe justice and goodness and love are real because God is essentially those transcendent goods) is that it still reduces to faith in God. If God, and the transcendental goods that God is, were demonstrable, then it would be a different story, but they're not. Ground your moral in whatever you want, if we're going to actually flourish we need common ground, which I think is something like well-being, flourishing, etc. I think there is wide-spread, inter-subjective agreement regarding basic human goods- life, basic necessities, security, the ability to live one's life according to one's own determination (within the bounds of social agreement), etc. The wider the agreement, the more likely we're hitting the mark. As Aristotle famously stated (Nichomachean Ethics), we shouldn't look for precision in areas of inherent ambiguity.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Maybe we should agree that my response and the post to which it was addressed was off topic. I don't think we need to discuss the existence of God as we are looking at determining a secular morality.

I think that saying in order to establish an authoritative standard of morality that's not arbitrary the transcendent needs to exist, is a valid and good argument against the ability to establish a secular morality. The denial of one position affirms another.