Establishing Secular Morality

[Larniavc]

Note: Not "well brought up" - that is very variable in society/ discussion/ different places and times.
They might never know.

"Raised in the way they should be " is Biblical, Correct in reality, truth, morals (not worldly 'Christianity') , but the way God Says is Correct, daily, in all ways. i.e.

especially in truth. They learn from all their life not to lie, and not to believe lies but to trust the Creator in all things and give Him Praise and with Thanksgiving all the time , in Him.
He directly protects His little ones from the liar and father of lies, the devil, and from liars and thieves and murderers. As is written. Not at all as mankind thinks nor as mankind believes.

Yeah, that does not make sense. By that logic any Christian raised that way would not be fooled by all those diddler pastors we hear so much about in the news. So reality clearly doe not agree with you.

 

[o_mlly]

I skimmed though some text with minimal relevance to our conversation and didn't spot anything objectionable so I gave the polite nod of non-disagreement. ... Otherwise I'll snip out all of those bits in any future reply.

"Non-disagreement"? Why the double negative? Typing just "Agreement" would have save you 6 keystrokes.

No need to do any snipping as we're finished but do let us know when you are serious about the thread.

 

[Larniavc]

I take it I resolved your objection to compulsive gambling as being unnatural.

No. As I said compulsions are a part of human psychology and are in know way 'unnatural'.

What is the definition of unnatural you are using, here?

 

[Larniavc]

When we lie (i.e., deliberately utter a falsehood with the intention to deceive), our brain arousal level is increased because of a catecholaminic response that is triggered by the Autonomic Nervous System. This system is also responsible for other body changes that can be detected easily by lie detector tests, including voice modulation, which can be detected via “voice stress analyzers” [1]; pupil mydriasis; increases in respiratory and cardiac frequency; and skin conductance changes (electrodermal response).

None of that gives any reason to call lying unnatural. And I have no idea why you bolded 'ANS'. The stress reaction is a well understood part of the human psychology- I really don't know why you think it is unnatural.

You can't just say something is 'unnatural' when it is a natural part of a living organism.

 

[Larniavc]

BTW: Some think that all psychology is psychobabble.

And some people think the world is flat but there are idiots around every corner.

 

[o_mlly]

No. As I said compulsions are a part of human psychology and are in [sic] know way 'unnatural'.

What is the definition of unnatural you are using, here?

un·nat·u·ral
1: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
2 : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior
3 : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected

Now, if the atheist textbook on morality reads that "lying" is morally permissible because lying is natural, consistent with a normal behavior, reasonable, and to be expected then one ought avoid doing business with atheists.

 

[Larniavc]

un·nat·u·ral
1: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
2 : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior
3 : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected

Now, if the atheist textbook on morality reads that "lying" is morally permissible because lying is natural, consistent with a normal behavior, reasonable, and to be expected then one ought avoid doing business with atheists.

On the other hand if one were to think that lying is not in accordance with normal human behaviour and to be expected I would consider the thinker to be hopelessly naive about human nature.

You might as well say all behaviour is unnatural.

 

[essentialsaltes]

un·nat·u·ral
1: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
2 : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior
3 : inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected

Now, if the atheist textbook on morality reads that "lying" is morally permissible because lying is natural, consistent with a normal behavior, reasonable, and to be expected then one ought avoid doing business with atheists.

We're merely trying to understand how lying is unnatural, based on any of those three definitions. Your most recent suggestion has to do with physiological changes or something, which does not appear to match any of those three definitions.

 

[o_mlly]

On the other hand if one were to think that lying is not in accordance with normal human behaviour and to be expected I would consider the thinker to be hopelessly naive about human nature.

You might as well say all behaviour is unnatural.

On both hands, if one thinks that telling the truth and lying are morally equivalent then that person is just, well, hopeless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Non-disagreement"? Why the double negative? Typing just "Agreement" would have save you 6 keystrokes.

That is I didn't explicitly disagree with you my reply was a non-diagreement. It was not a disagreement, but it wasn't agreement. Language isn't that hard unless you confuse it for boolean logic.

No need to do any snipping as we're finished but do let us know when you are serious about the thread.

I don't see where you've engaged the topic of secular moral systems.

 

[Pommer]

You'll get similar changes during sex. I don't think that's unnatural. Deception is quite normal. It's common in nature.

That might be unnatural.

Even the Earth “lies” to us…it appears that the sun “goes around” the Earth everyday.
We didn’t figure this earth-lie until about 400 years ago.

 

[o_mlly]

We're merely trying to understand how lying is unnatural ...

My atheist interlocutors are hung up on the notion that lying is an unnatural act. As materialists, I suppose the atheist's understanding of "natural" is anything ever observed in the material world. However in Catholic moral theology, unnatural pertains to certain human acts, acts opposed to natural law.

Summa I-II 31, vii:

Thus when we speak about something that is unnatural, it can be unnatural in respect to the soul or the body. And this corruption [of nature] may be either on the part of the body—from some ailment; thus to a man suffering from fever, sweet things seem bitter, and vice versa— or from an evil temperament; thus some take pleasure in eating earth and coals and the like; or on the part of the soul; thus from custom some take pleasure in cannibalism or in the unnatural intercourse of man and beast, or other such things, which are not in accord with human nature.​

Aquinas thinks of nature and natural law as a rational; unnatural as irrational. Cannibalism, bestiality, sins of all kinds (lying), and death are unnatural acts or events.

In order to move forward, I suggest we substitute "vicious" instead of "unnatural" and "virtuous" instead of "natural".

 

[essentialsaltes]

In order to move forward, I suggest we substitute "vicious" instead of "unnatural" and "virtuous" instead of "natural".

Aha, so thing that are virtuous are moral, and things that are vicious are not. Now we're really getting somewhere.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Aha, so thing that are virtuous are moral, and things that are vicious are not. Now we're really getting somewhere.

But Cannon Law is hardly a basis for secular morality.

 

[Bradskii]

This simply untrue. When people take a risk (such as getting caught out in a lie) their body activates the sympathetic nervous system. Which is perfectly normal. The body doesn't experience 'autonomous revulsion'. Who ever told you that baloney?

'I'm all in'. That's because I want to convince the table I've got the other two aces. But it's a lie. I'm holding junk. I am going to be excited at that moment. I'll get a shot of adrenalin which will cause various physiological changes. But I know I won't feel revulsion.

 

[Bradskii]

Awkward English.
Changes when someone lies are sometimes if not unaware of it and even though it gives them away in their lies, they don't try to control the changes or they cannot.
The changes when being honest in any activity or speech, can be imitated of course... but usually not completely.

There was no need to warn us.

 

[Bradskii]

Now, if the atheist textbook on morality reads that "lying" is morally permissible because lying is natural, consistent with a normal behavior, reasonable, and to be expected then one ought avoid doing business with atheists.

I haven't got my textbook handy at the moment but from memory it will say that lying is an entirely natural human act, so don't expect everything you hear to be necessarily true. Some people at some time will try to take advantage of you by lying.

So some lies are harmful. As opposed to those that are used to prevent harm (there's no-one in the basement). Context is everything.

 

[o_mlly]

That is I didn't explicitly disagree with you my reply was a non-diagreement. It was not a disagreement, but it wasn't agreement. Language isn't that hard unless you confuse it for boolean logic.

"Class, finally on your exam, sparse the above sentence for extra-credit. You may use your calculators."

 

[o_mlly]

Aha, so thing that are virtuous are moral, and things that are vicious are not. Now we're really getting somewhere.

No, we are not. And the reason is, imo, that although I have attempted to provide them a means to establish a secular moral order, the atheists resist anything that would constrain them in whatever licentious behaviors they prefer to call natural.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"Class, finally on your exam, sparse the above sentence for extra-credit. You may use your calculators."

If sparsing is like parsing, but for semantics rather than grammar, I can try to help you understand the language.

Asserting that "non-disagreement" is a "double negative" is to make the fallacy of the excluded middle. Not disagreeing with P is not equivalent to asserting ~~P.

An example may be helpful

If I assert that the 1944 Hitchcock film "Gaslight" won two Academy Awards, you might not immediately believe me. Atheists (like all humans) frequently lie. So you would not immediately express agreement. You withhold assent. However, there is nothing absurd in the idea of a film (especially one notable enough to become an eponym) winning two Academy Awards, so it would seem irrational to conclude that it did not win two Oscars. So you reserve judgment, and do not disagree. This non-disagreement is not at all equivalent to asserting that 'It is not the case that Hitchcock's "Gaslight" did not win two Academy Awards."