Establishing Secular Morality

[Larniavc]

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

Isn’t more accurate to say that man has the tendency to associate with other people?

Invoking a moral right for something that happens seems an extraneous entity in this context.

 

[o_mlly]

Isn’t more accurate to say that man has the tendency to associate with other people?

Yes. The "tendency" to associate with other people is inveterate and natural to all human beings as opposed to the unnatural habits of a few, eg., the tendency to gamble, to smoke, to lie, etc.

There are, of course, human beings who will not to or are incapable of associating with other people. The former do so usually for religious reasons, eg., choosing the eremitic life, and the latter due to a psychological disorder, eg., autism.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.)

Good grief. You are all over the place. Not even sure how we got to this.

 

[o_mlly]

Good grief. You are all over the place. Not even sure how we got to this.

No, I'm quite focused. Let me paste the posts that got us here:

First, you wrote that, in your opinion, all morality is subjective.

I don't think there is an objective morality.​

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.​

Your posts contradict each other. Either all morality is objective and human beings do not have a moral right to associate or they do. So I asked you to clarify your position.

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

 

[essentialsaltes]

Your posts contradict each other.

Subjective just means a matter of opinion (rather than a matter of objective fact). It becomes tedious to begin every sentence "In my opinion..." but if one says [or implies, as in saying "seems reasonable [to me]"]

"In my opinion, all human beings have a right to associate." this is consistent with the idea that morality is subjective.

 

[zippy2006]

Subjective just means a matter of opinion (rather than a matter of objective fact). It becomes tedious to begin every sentence "In my opinion..." but if one says [or implies, as in saying "seems reasonable [to me]"]

"In my opinion, all human beings have a right to associate." this is consistent with the idea that morality is subjective.

Opinions are precisely the sort of things that contradict. Adding, "In my opinion," does not prevent a contradiction from being a contradiction.

The idea that humans have rights would seem to contradict the idea that morality is subjective. If someone holds both of these beliefs as opinions, then their opinions contradict.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The idea that humans have rights would seem to contradict the idea that morality is subjective.

It depends on what a right is, I suppose. If it's an agreement among people, then I don't see that it's objective.

I find tiresome the proposition that slaves possessed the right to be free; it was just being infringed by the United States.

 

[o_mlly]

"In my opinion, all human beings have a right to associate." this is consistent with the idea that morality is subjective.

Your comment is not logically consistent.

One who claims a human right is universally true claims a universal moral truth. Logically, the post also reads, therefore, that in their opinion, morality is not subjective.

One who is unable or unwilling to defend their opinion does not put that opinion into ontological oblivion. It merely indicates that the one who does so is not worth debating.

 

[essentialsaltes]

One who claims a human right is universally true claims a universal moral truth.

Things that are universal are not necessarily objective. Brussels Sprouts are universally nasty-tasting.

 

[o_mlly]

Things that are universal are not necessarily objective. Brussels Sprouts are universally nasty-tasting.

De gustibus non disputandum est. De veritate disputandum est.

 

[essentialsaltes]

De gustibus non disputandum est. De veritate disputandum est.

Right, and unlike mathematical truths or facts unaffected by personal opinions, moral and gustatory statements don't live anywhere other than in personal opinions or tastes.

 

[o_mlly]

Right, and unlike mathematical truths or facts unaffected by personal opinions, moral and gustatory statements don't live anywhere other than in personal opinions or tastes.

Hans and I were way past that silliness. You have a preconceived opinion that morality is subjective but will not or cannot defend your position.

"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."

 

[Larniavc]

unnatural habits of a few, eg., the tendency to gamble, to smoke, to lie, etc.

In what way are the unnatural?

 

[Larniavc]

There are, of course, human beings who will not to or are incapable of associating with other people. The former do so usually for religious reasons, eg., choosing the eremitic life, and the latter due to a psychological disorder, eg., autism.

So?

 

[o_mlly]

In what way are the unnatural?

In what way do you consider them to be natural?

 

[o_mlly]

So?

Yes, so.

 

[Bradskii]

Opinions are precisely the sort of things that contradict. Adding, "In my opinion," does not prevent a contradiction from being a contradiction.

The idea that humans have rights would seem to contradict the idea that morality is subjective. If someone holds both of these beliefs as opinions, then their opinions contradict.

Rights are just agreements that we make that what we individually would prefer to be allowed to do is also granted to those who would allow it. So if, in my opinion, I should be allowed the freedom of speech then I have to allow everyone else the same freedom.

And in passing, everyone agreeing on something does not make it objective.

 

[Bradskii]

In what way do you consider them to be natural?

I'm not sure about smoking. But if you define gambling as simply taking a chance on doing something that you hope will have a beneficial result, then that is entirely natural (although I doubt it could be said that playing poker is natural in itself). And lying is about as natural as it comes. Is there anyone in the basement? Does this dress make my bum look big? Am I holding two aces?

No is probably the best answer to each of those.

 

[Pommer]

[Invariably] “(Other) People are using their free-will wrongly!”—the basis for any morality

 

[zippy2006]

It depends on what a right is, I suppose. If it's an agreement among people, then I don't see that it's objective.

By "right" we usually mean natural right, not civil right.