Establishing Secular Morality

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think that some people are pretty certain about what God wants. And if we do what God doesn't want then it is therefore harmful and no discussions will change that. But you're right. This is a chat about secular morality so we're going to have to do the hard lifting ourselves. And, if necessary, agree to disagree. Which will annoy the living daylights out of some people.

Civil laws begin some protection but there is always a difference between law and morality. What are those laws based on/ I hope practical experience. What about if we stated teaching critical thinking, virtues and emotional intelligence and listening skills in grammar school?

 

[Bradskii]

I guess I just have an unshakeable feeling---or maybe its a rational apprehension---that keeping religion out of the discussion won't really enable the establishment of secular morality to take hold on a more global or universal level.

Or maybe I just have the likes of Charles Taylor or Michael Ignatieff too much on the brain in all of this ...

I appreciate that you have a dog in the fight. There cannot be a completely comprehensive secular morality with which you could agree because by doing so you would be rejecting the need for that transcendent authority.

But then again, if God says that X is right and Y is wrong then I can see only three options: You either agree (with whatever interpretation has been presented to you) without question (needless to say that concerns me). Or you personally decide yourself that what God wants is correct. And that's what we all do - make a decision on what's right or wrong. Or...you think He's wrong. At which point you have a crisis of faith OR you determine that you don't know God's mind so He must be right and it's just that you don't have enough knowledge to appreciate it.

I see a mixture of the first two all the time. The third option is so rare I can't think of the last time when I heard someone say 'I disagree with God on that matter, but...that must mean that I am wrong'.

 

[Bradskii]

Civil laws begin some protection but there is always a difference between law and morality. What are those laws based on/ I hope practical experience. What about if we stated teaching critical thinking, virtues and emotional intelligence and listening skills in grammar school?

And question everything? A great idea. But you won't see too much support for that in this forum. Or in some sections of society.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I appreciate that you have a dog in the fight. There cannot be a completely comprehensive secular morality with which you could agree because by doing so you would be rejecting the need for that transcendent authority.

But then again, if God says that X is right and Y is wrong then I can see only three options: You either agree (with whatever interpretation has been presented to you) without question (needless to say that concerns me). Or you personally decide yourself that what God wants is correct. And that's what we all do - make a decision on what's right or wrong. Or...you think He's wrong. At which point you have a crisis of faith OR you determine that you don't know God's mind so He must be right and it's just that you don't have enough knowledge to appreciate it.

I see a mixture of the first two all the time. The third option is so rare I can't think of the last time when I heard someone say 'I disagree with God on that matter, but...that must mean that I am wrong'.

I think you're missing a fourth option: that maybe some people just haven't yet lived long enough or read or studied widely enough to rationally come to terms with all things Ethical and Moral, particularly where these things pertain to the Bible?

If we don't consider this fourth possibility, with atheistic demuring notwithstanding, we otherwise reach an eventuality where EITHER 1) we end up with earthly, authoritarian voices simply dismissing what "God" (or more specifically, Jesus) has to say on human moral matters, OR 2) we end up settling for a sort of milk-toast variety of pluralized secularism where everyone, within certain minimal legal constraints attuned to an amorphous sense of "well-being," does more or less what is right in their own eyes and nothing but what is right in their own eyes.

 

[Stephen3141]

I thought that the purpose of this thread was to discuss the establishing of a secular ME system.

Very few entries, have addressed that goal.
---------- ----------

I find the use of "objective" and "subjective" to be undefined.

Historical discussions in Epistemology have dealt with vocabulary such as
"opinion" and "belief". But then they add that there are ways in which to
"justify" these personal opinions and beliefs, and demonstrate that they
can have the force of facts.

I do not see this system of definitions, used in this thread.

 

[o_mlly]

They lack content because they are general principles. Like Jesus' command to treat others as you would like to be treated. Which is another variation of the same principles you noted above.

Well, Jesus gave us much more than just a general principle. For instance: See Mat 5:17-48.

And as this is a thread on how a secular morality might be established, an appeal to a transcendent authority as regards what constitutes harm is unfortunately not applicable. We're going to have to work out how we might do that without any input from any given deity.

I agree that an appeal to biblical or any other religious sources is not applicable in this thread. I tried to give a rational basis for establishing a secular morality appealing to an immanent authority -- an understanding of our human nature. Unfortunately, the materialists roundly rejected the notion. ?

 

[o_mlly]

There's one theory here: Study reveals clues to how humans became sociable.

Nor should we appeal to an evolution theory.

 

[Bradskii]

... OR 2) we end up settling for a sort of milk-toast variety of pluralized secularism where everyone, within certain minimal legal constraints attuned to an amorphous sense of "well-being," does more or less what is right in their own eyes and nothing but what is right in their own eyes.

But what's with the milk-toast? The 'pluralized secularism'? The 'amorphous sense of well being'?

If a proposal is made that you consider a little weak and insipid then let's discuss how we can make it more robust. If it's amorphous then let's clarify it. And if you think it's 'pluralized secularism' then you can take a couple of minutes explaining to me what you mean by that.

And you can also clarify what you think is wrong with well being as well. Shouldn't we consider well being when we think of morality? The well being of others as well as ourselves? We obviously agree. So maybe you think a secular morality is all about the well being of the self. Well, it's true that we each have to consider what is right and what is wrong ourselves (because we're excluding the transcendent authority). But I doubt you'll find anyone proposing it should only be about the self.

 

[Bradskii]

I thought that the purpose of this thread was to discuss the establishing of a secular ME system.

Very few entries, have addressed that goal.
---------- ----------

I find the use of "objective" and "subjective" to be undefined.

Historical discussions in Epistemology have dealt with vocabulary such as
"opinion" and "belief". But then they add that there are ways in which to
"justify" these personal opinions and beliefs, and demonstrate that they
can have the force of facts.

Good point. I think it was briefly metioned earlier when @stevevw suggested that we might be able to objectively determine that harm has been caused and a link was added to what Sam Harris thought on the same point. I think we can say that objective in that case is something akin to an undeniable fact about the world. Whereas subjective would be a personal opinion. So if I smack you in the mouth it will cause you harm. That would be an objective fact. So I shouldn't do it. Even though I have a personal opinion that it was justified.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, Jesus gave us much more than just a general principle. For instance: See Mat 5:17-48.

I agree that an appeal to biblical or any other religious sources is not applicable in this thread. I tried to give a rational basis for establishing a secular morality appealing to an immanent authority -- an understanding of our human nature. Unfortunately, the materialists roundly rejected the notion. ?

Well this materialist is quite keen on using our understanding of 'human nature' as a basis for discussing morality (see the next post). I know that you want human nature to be divinely ordained. But that isn't really a problem because it's a human nature that was formed within a natural evolutionary process or a divinely designed evolutionary process. The end result is till the same and can still be used for the same purpose.

 

[Bradskii]

Nor should we appeal to an evolution theory.

But we don't use the ToE as a basis to form a moral code. I don't know why that's so often claimed. If we did then anything, and I mean literally anything that increased fitness would be good. Which it obviously isn't.

We use evolution to work out why we are what we seem to be. Why we do what we tend to do. It helps us a great deal in knowing that. In knowing what makes us tick. In understanding ourselves. But what we don't do, and definitely shouldn't do, is extrapolate from that and blindly follow every path that evolution suggests.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Eleven Steps Toward Promoting Civic Virtue In Good People​

Eleven Steps Toward Promoting Civic Virtue In Good People

Stanford Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo analyzes the way an organization can support good behavior.

www.scu.edu

 

[partinobodycular]

Eleven Steps Toward Promoting Civic Virtue In Good People​

Eleven Steps Toward Promoting Civic Virtue In Good People

Stanford Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo analyzes the way an organization can support good behavior.

www.scu.edu

The first few were great... and then downhill it went...

 

[Bradskii]

The first few were great... and then downhill it went...

I thought they were OK after a quick look. Except maybe:

1. Rewarding the social modeling of moral behavior, elevating for organizational recognition those who do the right thing.
   1. Punish outliers
   2. Reward people who do the right thing
   3. Recognition (carrots and sticks) needs to be visible to peers

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The first few were great... and then downhill it went...

Well, we got to start somewhere. But I can see where things can go wrong.

 

[partinobodycular]

I thought they were OK after a quick look. Except maybe:

1. Rewarding the social modeling of moral behavior, elevating for organizational recognition those who do the right thing.
   1. Punish outliers
   2. Reward people who do the right thing
   3. Recognition (carrots and sticks) needs to be visible to peers

That's the same one that got me, but then I began to think about some of the others a bit more as well, in the wrong hands they can really have some negative implications.

What about this one for example:

Discouraging even the smallest transgressions, cheating, gossiping, lying, teasing and bullying. They provide the first steps toward escalating downwards to ever worsening behaviors.​

​

Who's to decide which transgressions are to be discouraged? As with all moral codes, you can start with the easy ones... it's where you go after that that makes the difference.

 

[Bradskii]

That's the same one that got me, but then I began to think about some of the others a bit more as well, in the wrong hands they can really have some negative implications.

What about this one for example:

Discouraging even the smallest transgressions, cheating, gossiping, lying, teasing and bullying. They provide the first steps toward escalating downwards to ever worsening behaviors.​

​

Who's to decide which transgressions are to be discouraged? As with all moral codes, you can start with the easy ones... it's where you go after that that makes the difference.

Yeah, I'd say that's my number two least liked as well. I see the idea behind it. And in some circumstances it would be applicable - trying to control a classroom of kids for example. You draw the line early and allow no overstepping. But does that map onto moral codes? I don't think so. Because then you'd have no leeway in some actions such as lying. So no lying at all. Even the whitest of white lies forbidden. Needless to say that that wouldn't work on at least a couple of levels.

 

[o_mlly]

Well this materialist is quite keen on using our understanding of 'human nature' as a basis for discussing morality ...

? If true then you were AWOL when the thread moved in exactly that direction. Was that because a theist introduced the idea and, at first, his materialist interlocutor leaned in, but then bailed w/o reason?

That's the same one that got me, but then I began to think about some of the others a bit more as well, in the wrong hands they can really have some negative implications.

Sorry partin, but that's nonsense. It simply demonstrates that you don't understand the concept of a moral code ... here's hoping that someone here will have the patience to educate you.

 

[o_mlly]

Well this materialist is quite keen on using our understanding of 'human nature' as a basis for discussing morality ...

Let me take you at your word and repost #104. Chime in if you like.

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?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But what's with the milk-toast? The 'pluralized secularism'? The 'amorphous sense of well being'?

If a proposal is made that you consider a little weak and insipid then let's discuss how we can make it more robust. If it's amorphous then let's clarify it. And if you think it's 'pluralized secularism' then you can take a couple of minutes explaining to me what you mean by that.

And you can also clarify what you think is wrong with well being as well. Shouldn't we consider well being when we think of morality? The well being of others as well as ourselves? We obviously agree. So maybe you think a secular morality is all about the well being of the self. Well, it's true that we each have to consider what is right and what is wrong ourselves (because we're excluding the transcendent authority). But I doubt you'll find anyone proposing it should only be about the self.

I agree with the insinuation here that in a discussion (or debate) it's usually best to offer an alternative solution to the opposing position that has been criticized. But in this case, I'm not one who thinks that a truly 'secular' morality can be hashed out. So while I think you're wise to suggest that we put on our thinking caps and make what is conceptually weak more robust, I don't think the state of the world will ever really allow an agreement or shared outlook on the nature of morality, especially not an officialized one to which everyone will subscribe. It's just not going to happen (for reasons explicated by those like Michael Ignatieff in regard to the globalized push for Human Rights).

And yes.....................I know. It sounds pessimistic for me to say so. Then again, I've already said too many times that I'm an Existentialist, and I continue to do so (ad nauseum) for certain reasons.

As for what I consider "milk-toast" and amorphous in nature, my citation of such a state secularized morality is to indicate that the concept of well-being is too much of a wax nose. Everyone is too busy thinking about what variable value they want to put into the blank on their own behalf; there's very little consideration---and probably won't be much in the time forthcoming for the reasons I've briefly explained above---on one's own care for others and for what other people will want to place as a variable into the values blank [___X___], other than to be aware of which valued others have in order to castigate those other values ...