Establishing Secular Morality

[zippy2006]

Thanks, @Bradskii. You've responded better than I could have.

I highly doubt that. Back to slavery:

I think [slavery] is wrong. I think history shows us that that practice fails to make society livable, workable, and stable.

If slavery is wrong because it fails to make society livable, workable, and stable, then why isn't mass euthanasia wrong? You have a principle, but are you willing to apply it impartially?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I highly doubt that. Back to slavery:


If slavery is wrong because it fails to make society livable, workable, and stable, then why isn't mass euthanasia wrong? You have a principle, but are you willing to apply it impartially?

Because euthanasia (voluntary) does make society livable, workable, and stable. And, no, I am not going to argue the merits of euthanasia with you.

 

[zippy2006]

Because euthanasia (voluntary) does make society livable, workable, and stable.

 

[Astrid]

Because euthanasia (voluntary) does make society livable, workable, and stable. And, no, I am not going to argue the merits of euthanasia with you.

There's a limit to total medical care and
there's never enough.
Caring at great expense for those dying in
terrible distres...who beg to be allowed to go...
is immoral and insane.

 

[Bradskii]

If slavery is wrong because it fails to make society livable, workable, and stable, then why isn't mass euthanasia wrong? You have a principle, but are you willing to apply it impartially?

What is 'mass euthanasia'? And I'm not having a dig. I really don't understand what that means. Lots of people deciding to commit suicide?

 

[Stephen3141]

I have sort of read through the posts so far.

Could someone list the things that many of you agree on?

 

[Stephen3141]

September 4th, 2023.......

My understanding is that this thread is a discussion about whether or not a secular morality exists.

I would make some assertions, that Christians and secular people
probably would find (sort of) relevant:

1. If we take the "atomic" existence approach argument (above),
then, at the atomic level, we find no substance called "morality"
or "immorality", so this implies that morality-ethics is not real.

This is a flawed argument. As most of us accept that all sorts of
super-atomic things are real, and important. By the way, it is only
a super-atomic mind that could make this flawed argument....

2. Intelligent beings talk about our shared reality, using concepts
that may reflect physical entities, but also may reflect abstract
concepts. Examples of abstract concepts would be valid reasoning
methods, moral-ethical models, and the concept of ownership.

Why should we arbitrarily restrict discussion to physical, material
things and labels for them? Human beings have much more advanced
capabilities, that we see as "real". from the beginning of philosophy,
philosophers have talked about "ideals" and values. This is not a
necessarily "religious" thing.

3. For Christian Fundamentalists reading this, philosophical Moral
Theory is the study of what all people think is "right" or "wrong".
Everyone has things that they believe are right or wrong, even if
their model is that they don't care about this, or cannot determine
what is right or wrong. And the secular thinkers treat morality-ethics
as one topic, not 2 (as many Fundamentalists do).

4. One can argue that, with the hard sciences, they are concerned with
models that "work" in the natural world. This is fine. Why would you want
to promote hard science models that do not work? It is hardly ANY model
that is put forward, that some individual likes, that must be affirmed as
"working". In other words, there is a standard for "what works". And it
involves algorithms to test whether or not some model "works". This is
not some majority vote of people, that determines "what works".

We have the acknowledged ad populam fallacy, that the majority vote
(of some group) determines what truth is. But humanity -- at least
logically thinking humanity -- has rejected this as a thinking fallacy.

5. The obvious question, is "what works" with regard to morality-ethics?
How are we to evaluate whether or not some ME (morality-ethics) model
"works"?

6. Note that what "works", in the ME debate, might not be what the majority
of some population vote as being true. As an example, ask a lynch mob
what is just. And they may reply with a majority vote, that it is to hang
black men, or hang Mike pence, or kill Nancy Pelosi, or reject the laws
governing fair elections that the majority of Americans have put in place
by majority votes. Which group you ask, makes a huge difference.

7. The assertion that an ME system must only work FOR ME, ignores that
for every preference or right that I claim I should have, there could be
legal restrictions on other people by a fair rule of law, that allows me to
have those human rights, or to carry our my preferences.

Observation: It is a ridiculous assertion, that I can build my own ME
system, apart from the rest of humanity. My freedoms may require legal
restrictions on other people. Their freedoms, may require legal restrictions
on me.

This is the huge failure of asserting
"It's my body -- keep your laws off my body!"

8. Some ME systems may "work" on the level on the individual that holds
them. But not on the level of society, as a whole. Are we to value the good
of society as a whole, more than the libertarian rights of an individual?

This is a beginning of points, that I would make.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

From the above, I summarize that the self-centered secular or atheist moral compass as follows: An action or inaction I contemplate as good for me directly (proximately) or indirectly (remotely) is permissible with the condition that what I contemplate as good for me indirectly is not directly bad for me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

From the above, I summarize that the self-centered secular or atheist moral compass as follows: An action or inaction I contemplate as good for me directly (proximately) or indirectly (remotely) is permissible with the condition that what I contemplate as good for me indirectly is not directly bad for me.

And that's a completely erroneous interpretation of the text you quoted:

Tinker Grey said:

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.

This quote is *specifically* about survival and motivation to survive. The motivation for an individual to save themselves is just that -- to keep living, to survive. It is *not* about "saving the species". No one saves themself so that humanity will survive, but that collective instinct to survive *does* help the species or society survive. If we had no self-survival instinct we'd all just stand there in the middle of the road oblivious to traffic.

We all make this kind of choice and as referenced in the quoted text is free of ethical questions. It is not a question of should I preserve myself versus saving others or some other balancing between the individual's interests and the interests of others, it is a pure survival example. Therefore, the quoted text from @Tinker Grey does not demonstrate a self-centered core to secular morality since it doesn't directly say *ANYTHING* about morality.

 

[o_mlly]

...
This quote is *specifically* about survival and motivation to survive. ... it doesn't directly say *ANYTHING* about morality.

? The title of this thread is "Establishing Secular Morality" and Tinker is responding to the OP's post:

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 ... assumes that there's some inherent value in survival ...

Tinker uses the first person pronoun "I". You and Tinker agree that morality is subjective so, if you agree with Tinker, kindly correct my interpretation as to the guiding principles in your morality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

? The title of this thread is "Establishing Secular Morality" and Tinker is responding to the OP's post:

I am aware of the title. I didn't not fully appreciate that you were responding partially to 7 week old post.

Tinker uses the first person pronoun "I".

Because he personalizes an example about motivation and self preservation. The text you quoted was just about self-preservation. The motivation of the individual to save themselves from imminent danger is only focused on the self, not the group. That instinct has collective group advantages (the group does better if everyone doesn't fail to save themselves), but the decision making is individual in nature.

This motivation is one of the building blocks to further questions about the moral dilemma of self sacrifice and the motivations and drivers of it, but if you can't comprehend the actual context of that motivation in scenarios that are not about moral decisions, then how can you discuss ones that are.

You chose to slice away the mild bit of framing and claim the (moral question free) motivation discussion was an indicator of selfishness in secular moral systems when the actual text you quoted was just a small piece of the foundations of human understanding needed to construct such a system.

You and Tinker agree that morality is subjective so, if you agree with Tinker, kindly correct my interpretation as to the guiding principles in your morality.

I'm not sure that I said so in this thread, but it is true the I don't think there is an objective morality. Certainly not in the way any Christian uses that term. There may be an objective human basis for moral opinions, but those are the bits of the foundation that come on top of the non-moral motivation questions. The idea of the OP is a good one. We do need a solid secular moral system because the Christian one is an abject failure. Fortunately many of the needed pieces have been built over the centuries.

 

[o_mlly]

There may be an objective human basis for moral opinions ...

According to the Oxford dictionary, not "may be" but rather morality must be a set of principles:

morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.​

It seems you reject my summary as accurate as the principles of a secular morality. So, what are your secular moral principles, or, if you like, the objective human basis for moral opinions?

 

[Hans Blaster]

According to the Oxford dictionary, not "may be" but rather morality must be a set of principles:

morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Again, you fail to read my sentence correctly or choose to ignore it.

I said "There may be an objective human basis for moral opinions"

that is there may be intrinsic properties of humans that provide for a basis to build moral opinions. To build a set of principles based on top of those after the subjective choice of goals. Your "oxford defniition" doesn't say anything about mrality being objective, just a set of principles. I didn't even get to the choices about goals for morality. You're jumping way ahead of anything I've discussed and making demands.

 

[o_mlly]

Again, you fail to read my sentence correctly or choose to ignore it.

I said "There may be an objective human basis for moral opinions"

that is there may be intrinsic properties of humans that provide for a basis to build moral opinions. To build a set of principles based on top of those after the subjective choice of goals. Your "oxford defniition" doesn't say anything about mrality being objective, just a set of principles. I didn't even get to the choices about goals for morality. You're jumping way ahead of anything I've discussed and making demands.

... that is there may be intrinsic properties of humans that provide for a basis to build moral opinions. ...
What intrinsic properties might those be?

... To build a set of principles based on top of those after the subjective choice of goals. ...
? If the basis of "principles" derive from subjective goals then those principles are themselves necessarily subjective.

... Your "oxford defniition" ...
Well, it's not mine, it's Oxford's definition of "morality".

... doesn't say anything about mrality being objective,
? You brought up the notion of objectivity in morality -- "There may be an objective human basis for moral opinions ..."

... just a set of principles. ...
Here's Oxford's definition of "principle":

noun, moral rule or a strong belief that influences your actions.​

Looks like "moral rules" and "principles" are synonymous. Do you have a point to make that I may be missing?

... I didn't even get to the choices about goals for morality. ...
The thread is about "Establishing Secular Morality". Kindly disclose what goals you believe are necessary for a secular morality?

... You're jumping way ahead of anything I've discussed and making demands.
? I responded to Tinker's post. You responded to my post. I made no demands of you or Tinker.
______________________________________________________________________________---
It appears there is not only no secular (atheist) moral system, there's no serious effort to establish one. Those who claim all morality is subjective cannot appeal to a higher authority for moral rules of behavior and are necessarily doomed to cling only to legal positivism.

 

[Hans Blaster]

... that is there may be intrinsic properties of humans that provide for a basis to build moral opinions. ...
What intrinsic properties might those be?

Those things that are intrinsic to humans and how we live. Empathy for others, our need to cooperate to thrive and work in groups. This is the nature of humans (and most of the other apes).

... To build a set of principles based on top of those after the subjective choice of goals. ...
? If the basis of "principles" derive from subjective goals then those principles are themselves necessarily subjective.

Yeah, exactly.

... Your "oxford defniition" ...
Well, it's not mine, it's Oxford's definition of "morality".

... doesn't say anything about mrality being objective,
? You brought up the notion of objectivity in morality -- "There may be an objective human basis for moral opinions ..."

Objective morality (the actual rules being objective, outside any person's opinion) and an objective basis (group cooperation, empathy, which can be detected in all human groups objectively) are not the same thing. Got it?

... just a set of principles. ...
Here's Oxford's definition of "principle":

noun, moral rule or a strong belief that influences your actions.​

Looks like "moral rules" and "principles" are synonymous. Do you have a point to make that I may be missing?

And I used "principle" synonymously with "moral rule" just as you had. They are not the same things as the intrinsic properties of humanity that can be objective.

... I didn't even get to the choices about goals for morality. ...
The thread is about "Establishing Secular Morality". Kindly disclose what goals you believe are necessary for a secular morality?

First we need to understand the basics. That's what the bit you quoted from Tinker was about. A simple question about motivation for self versus the group. There is a long way to go from there.

... You're jumping way ahead of anything I've discussed and making demands.
? I responded to Tinker's post. You responded to my post. I made no demands of you or Tinker.
______________________________________________________________________________---
It appears there is not only no secular (atheist) moral system, there's no serious effort to establish one. Those who claim all morality is subjective cannot appeal to a higher authority for moral rules of behavior and are necessarily doomed to cling only to legal positivism.

 

[o_mlly]

Those things that are intrinsic to humans and how we live. Empathy for others, our need to cooperate to thrive and work in groups. This is the nature of humans (and most of the other apes).

I agree that man is a social or gregarious animal. He naturally needs to live in association with other human beings in organized societies. Morally, this natural need translates into a natural right, the right to associate with others.

However, although passions are intrinsic to human beings, in themselves they are neither good nor bad but determined to be one or the other by the act they move one to take. Morality is about acts; not feelings. Feelings, or passions, are unwilled and derive from our affections. Disordered affections lead to disordered feelings. Feelings do not give moral license to acts they may move us to commit. One cannot appeal to one’s passions, neither empathy nor anger, to justify an act as morally permissible which is not.

So, the foundation of your secular morality is simply that man has a natural right to association with others and others have an obligation to respect that right. Not much to work on.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree that man is a social or gregarious animal. He naturally needs to live in association with other human beings in organized societies. Morally, this natural need translates into a natural right, the right to associate with others.

However, although passions are intrinsic to human beings, in themselves they are neither good nor bad but determined to be one or the other by the act they move one to take. Morality is about acts; not feelings. Feelings, or passions, are unwilled and derive from our affections. Disordered affections lead to disordered feelings. Feelings do not give moral license to acts they may move us to commit. One cannot appeal to one’s passions, neither empathy nor anger, to justify an act as morally permissible which is not.

So, the foundation of your secular morality is simply that man has a natural right to association with others and others have an obligation to respect that right. Not much to work on.

I agree with all that except the last sentence. I think what's being discussed is whatever variation of the Golden Rule each of us has in mind. Call it 'do unto others...etc' or reciprocal altruism or Kant's Categorical Imperative...whatever suits. But it's not a natural right. It's a natural tendency. I say it's the result of the evolutionary process And you might say it's a God given instinct that we have. Or it's a combo of the two (evolution was the process He used). And it's not the only tendencies we have. So there's a lot to unpack when you examine a specific moral act. But as a starting point it covers a lot of bases.

And it's one aspect of morality where you can determine an ought from an is. Jesus was saying that treating others as you would like to be treated is a means to a better society. So you ought to do it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I agree that man is a social or gregarious animal. He naturally needs to live in association with other human beings in organized societies. Morally, this natural need translates into a natural right, the right to associate with others.

Seems reasonable so far.

However, although passions are intrinsic to human beings, in themselves they are neither good nor bad but determined to be one or the other by the act they move one to take. Morality is about acts; not feelings.

I suppose.

Feelings, or passions, are unwilled and derive from our affections.

Not sure the point here.

Disordered affections lead to disordered feelings.

No clue as to what this or what "affections" have to do with anything.

Feelings do not give moral license to acts they may move us to commit. One cannot appeal to one’s passions, neither empathy nor anger, to justify an act as morally permissible which is not.

Again no sure the point of this.

So, the foundation of your secular morality is simply that man has a natural right to association with others and others have an obligation to respect that right. Not much to work on.

Again, you don't read carefully what I've said. I have not provided a specific foundation for secular morality. We are far from that point in our conversation. (Perhaps there are some useful ideas in the pages before our interaction began, but I haven't read them recently.)

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly said:​

I agree that man is a social or gregarious animal. He naturally needs to live in association with other human beings in organized societies. Morally, this natural need translates into a natural right, the right to associate with others.​

Seems reasonable so far.

If you agree that morally man has the right to associate with others then morality is not entirely subjective. Correct?

The basis for any moral systems consists in identifying natural rights; rights that ought to be recognized and respected by others. If you agree then a secular morality could be established based on the nature of human beings, ie., based on the natural needs common to all persons as members of the human race.

(It cannot be denied that drug addicts have a real need for the poisons they ingest. Our recognition of the fact that what they really need is not really good for them to have leads us to regard these needs as pathological rather than natural. They exist only in certain individuals under certain circumstances, not in all human beings under all circumstances.)

 

[Larniavc]

Those who claim all morality is subjective cannot appeal to a higher authority for moral rules of behavior and are necessarily doomed to cling only to legal positivism.

Firstly: so what?

Secondly: Christian morality is not objective as it applies to humans and God differently at different time in history.