Establishing Secular Morality

[Akita Suggagaki]

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.

Another virtue is prudence.

• Prudence (φρόνησις, phrónēsis; Latin: prudentia; also Wisdom, Sophia, sapientia), the ability to discern the appropriate course of action to be taken in a given situation at the appropriate time.

Those providing the "discouraging" or monitoring the program need to have a built in self assessment. People in control often get carried away.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Of course, these days education is focused on Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). from early grades we need to take an

"aretaic turn"​

Aretaic is from the Greek arete, meaning excellence or virtue. Aretaic thus means of or pertaining to virtue or excellence. In contemporary philosophy, aretaic approaches are those which focus on human excellence or virtue.

The aretaic turn is a movement in contemporary moral philosophy and ethics to emphasize character and human excellence or virtue, as opposed to moral rules or consequences.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

10 Ways to Build Your Character Each and Every Day​

Spotlight: Build Character Each And Every Day | It's Your Yale

Learn and Grow Spotlight: Build character each and every day

your.yale.edu

Building Character

Actionable, science-based advice on how to build strengths of heart, mind, and will

ed.ted.com

5 Tips for Building Character in the Classroom​

How to Build Character in School

To help your class gain all sorts of positive traits, you'll want to know how to build character in school. These lessons can help improve classroom behavior and your students' relationships in and out of the classroom.

www.successbydesign.com

 

[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

Is this simply attempting to exert a type of mind control?

Is it backwards?

What I mean by that is, for example, is it akin to trying to alter the behavior of a disenfranchised black man by changing his attitude, instead of actually addressing the things that are causing him to feel disenfranchised to begin with, and thereby also changing his attitude.

In other words, is the attitude the cause, or is the attitude the effect? Is this list really addressing the root cause?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Is this simply attempting to exert a type of mind control?

Is it backwards?

What I mean by that is, for example, is it akin to trying to alter the behavior of a disenfranchised black man by changing his attitude, instead of actually addressing the things that are causing him to feel disenfranchised to begin with, and thereby also changing his attitude.

In other words, is the attitude the cause, or is the attitude the effect? Is this list really addressing the root cause?

It is more about creating and ethical decision making framework in an organization. But I also see it as a starting point for education where we begin to cultivate virtue in all people.

 

[Bradskii]

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

Is this regarding @Hans Blaster's earlier comment? 'There may be an objective human basis for moral opinions...'

Yes, I agree with that.

Let's say we're a social animal, for whatever reason. We can say that that is an objective fact. But it's not a moral position in itself. But that objective fact leads to us taking moral positions. We try to understand, objectively, what human nature is and then use that as a basis for understanding the moral positions we take.

And yes, this is a materialist view of morality. Entirely secular. And yes, I know you disagree with it. You probably think this is too mechanistic. But as I said earlier, we are not governed by our nature. But knowing why we have the choices we have helps us understand why we make them.

This reminds me of what Feynman (say hi to my avatar) said about beauty. That understanding why we see something as being aesthetically pleasing doesn't detract from it being aesthetically pleasing. So if someone does something heroic, knowing why heroism is seen as a good thing doesn't detract from it being heroic in the first place. It's the same with morality. Understanding the basis of why we decide to do good doesn't make those actions less good.

Feynman: "I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…

I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts."

 

[Bradskii]

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.

That's true. For secular and religiously based moral codes. We're both aware of vastly different views that Christians within this forum take on any number of matters. And their views are, obviously, religiously based. Apart from the matter of interpretation there's a lot of cherries being picked in these parts. But the thread isn't aimed at finding a universally accepted moral code. That's impossible. It's a discussion on how morality can be developed from a secular viewpoint.

And to be honest, all that that's doing is looking for good reasons why some actions are good and some are bad. Without using divine fiat. But...surely if there is a divine commandment that we shouldn't do something, then there would be a reason behind it in any case. Unless God is playing dice with the universe (thanks Albert) then He'll have His reasons. So let's use them. You can slide them into any discussion about any matter without nominating God as the source. Be His advocate. Make His case. And we'll be obliged to consider it on its merit.

The only argument that will be invalid (as we're discussing secular morality) is that something is right (or wrong) simply because God says so.

 

[stevevw]

Though I like Sam Harris's take on morality I don't think it fully accounts for morality. It basically assumes human wellbeing is a fact for the basis of morality when theres no justification using the same logic of determining human wellbeing by science or logic.

One person or cultures idea of what is classed as wellbeing may be different to another because it can be influenced by subjective feelings about what is wellbeing or a breach of wellbeing.

This same problem exists in science methodology where science assumes reality is made of something material and naturalistic so can only be measured through empiricle science and our senses.

Whereas it seems to me that morality is something that transcends the material world and therefore cannot be measured in the conventional way.

Whatever morality is its not evolution, something physical though its effects can be seen in the physical.

Thats why I think we are by nature or design if you like have a moral sense or intuition just like we have a sense to love and be loved which cannot be measured scientifically or logically.

This moral sense is something more transcent and spiritual in the world and not just feelings. Feelings don't explain much of morality because its often going against our feelings. Yet we live like our moral sense is a law like physical laws of nature that stand independent of our subjective feelings or preferences.

 

[Bradskii]

Though I like Sam Harris's take on morality I don't think it fully accounts for morality. It basically assumes human wellbeing is a fact for the basis of morality when theres no justification using the same logic of determining human wellbeing by science or logic.

One person or cultures idea of what is classed as wellbeing may be different to another because it can be influenced by subjective feelings about what is wellbeing or a breach of wellbeing.

Yep. But harm is pretty universal. Holding a young girl down and slicing her genitals is harm. As we all know. Even those who are holding her down. And there aren't any cultural positions that can override or excuse it. That example is about as basic as one can get to get agreement to a position like that.

All cases must be examined individually. But this one is done and dusted.

 

[stevevw]

Yep. But harm is pretty universal. Holding a young girl down and slicing her genitals is harm. As we all know. Even those who are holding her down. And there aren't any cultural positions that can override or excuse it. That example is about as basic as one can get to get agreement to a position like that.

All cases must be examined individually. But this one is done and dusted.

Yes its pretty obvious to Western conceptions but its not to the culture or tribe that does it. The same with a number of practices like North American indian brutal initiations such as hanging your men by hooks until they faint to prove they can bear pain as a warrior. Or how Western nations still practice circumcision of males.

The problem as I mentioned earlier is that under a relative moral system as the West proclaims in being inclusive and tolerant of diversity we would have to accept that another culture has the right to hold those different views. We have no justification to impose Western ideology onto other cultures.

You could imagine taking the idea that Western morality is the only one true morality and applying that throughout the world. We would end up with a Westernized world where no other cultures exist.

In some ways its doing exactly the same thing that many progressives claim about Christianity trying to impose its particular take on morality on society. Something they bitterly oppose.

The point is how far do we go with this idea to interpret what is regarded as harm or not acvcording to the west. there are many situations that are not so clear even if they are in conflict with the West. Like say Indonesian nations executing drug addicts on the streets to deal with their horrific drug problem or very harsh jail sentences for crimes the West would consider petty.

Then theres the problem of who is going to police the West as to whether they are being fair and just when they have a poor record of living morally themselves.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes its pretty obvious to Western conceptions but its not to the culture or tribe that does it.

Yes it is. They know it causes harm. As do we. It's undeniable.

The same with a number of practices like North American indian brutal initiations such as hanging your men by hooks until they faint to prove they can bear pain as a warrior.

As does this practice cause harm. But if it was done as a means of tortue or it was done voluntarily as a means to prove oneself in some way, then...you know what the difference is. Please don't use examples that you know aren't valid.

 

[o_mlly]

Is this regarding @Hans Blaster's earlier comment?

? No. Why did you ignore the real Hans' root comment that I posted from the thread?

Hans Blaster said:​

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

Let's say we're a social animal, for whatever reason. We can say that that is an objective fact. But it's not a moral position in itself.

Good. So, like Hans, you agree with me that man is a naturally social animal. That is a descriptive fact. Not much more is necessary to translate that factual "is" to a moral "ought".

Since associating with others is inherent to our nature, it is really good for men to associate with other men.
We ought to want and seek whatever is really good for us.
Men have a moral right to association.

The same logic can be applied to every other descriptive fact about human nature, eg., life, liberty, health, knowledge, etc.

And yes, this is a materialist view of morality. Entirely secular. And yes, I know you disagree with it.

? Since I introduced this view of a secular morality to the thread, I can hardly disagree with myself. Perhaps it is rather you who oppose the notion that any Christian ethic could ever be rationally justified as objective?

This reminds me of what Feynman (say hi to my avatar) said about beauty.

? New thread?

 

[stevevw]

Yes it is. They know it causes harm. As do we. It's undeniable.

Well yes but the nature of belief will cause people to justify some strange things as Ok. Just because we think they know or should know like we know doesn't mean we should then make them. Thats the nature of trying to have a pluralistic relative world that we acannot just enter into another culture and start stopping them with their practices.

Remember when Western Colonialists stopped many Indigenous practices as they thought them barbaric and inhumane.

As does this practice cause harm. But if it was done as a means of tortue or it was done voluntarily as a means to prove oneself in some way, then...you know what the difference is. Please don't use examples that you know aren't valid.

Of course its valid. If we are imposing Western morals on other cultures then the best way to see if any practice is wrong as far as the West is concerned is to imagine if it was practiced in the West, in our society.

I would think regardless of whether it was done voluntarily or for whatever reason most people would be protesting and shocked at having some group hanging young males by hooks untill they pass out. The police would be all over them and social media would go into melt down lol.

I mean men are attacked today in the West as being badly behaved for simple little things. There was some college initiation where blokes had to drink excessively and misbehave and social media and new outlets were condemning their behaviour let alone hanging young blokes from the rafters by hooks till they pass out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's true. For secular and religiously based moral codes. We're both aware of vastly different views that Christians within this forum take on any number of matters. And their views are, obviously, religiously based. Apart from the matter of interpretation there's a lot of cherries being picked in these parts. But the thread isn't aimed at finding a universally accepted moral code. That's impossible. It's a discussion on how morality can be developed from a secular viewpoint.

And to be honest, all that that's doing is looking for good reasons why some actions are good and some are bad. Without using divine fiat. But...surely if there is a divine commandment that we shouldn't do something, then there would be a reason behind it in any case. Unless God is playing dice with the universe (thanks Albert) then He'll have His reasons. So let's use them. You can slide them into any discussion about any matter without nominating God as the source. Be His advocate. Make His case. And we'll be obliged to consider it on its merit.

The only argument that will be invalid (as we're discussing secular morality) is that something is right (or wrong) simply because God says so.

So basically, this thread is simply about doing Axiology but without considerations for various aspects of Meta-Ethics or the fact that diverse Ethical frames are, and have been, proposed and used by Secularists (and sometimes Christians) ....

... I'm not trying to be crass, but good luck with that Babylonian project.

 

[Bradskii]

Since associating with others is inherent to our nature, it is really good for men to associate with other men.
We ought to want and seek whatever is really good for us.
Men have a moral right to association.

The same logic can be applied to every other descriptive fact about human nature, eg., life, liberty, health, knowledge, etc.

If we are a social animal then all that means is that we are generally found in groups. But that doesn't make it good in a moral sense. It's good from an evolutionary perspective. Which certainly doesn't make it a right. Saying that we are a sociable animal is no more a moral position that saying that we are diurnal as opposed to nocturnal. It's logically nonsensical to then say it's morally good to spend our waking hours during the day and that we have a right to do so.

If someone asked how you might describe man as an animal you might say that H. sapien is a social mammal, bipedal, sexually dimorphic, diurnal, omnivorous etc. What you wouldn't include would be alive, healthy and knowledgable.

 

[Bradskii]

If we are imposing Western morals on other cultures then the best way to see if any practice is wrong as far as the West is concerned is to imagine if it was practiced in the West, in our society.

This isn't about imposing culture. Not in the slightest. No-one is comparing cultures. I'm not interested in the slightest if something is culturally relevant to one group of people or not. This is only about harm. Do not cause harm uneccesarily. If you have a reason for doing so then present it. If it's not valid then the harm is not justified. 'It's culturally allowed' is not an acceptable argument.

 

[o_mlly]

If we are a social animal then all that means is that we are generally found in groups. But that doesn't make it good in a moral sense. It's good from an evolutionary perspective. Which certainly doesn't make it a right. Saying that we are a sociable animal is no more a moral position that saying that we are diurnal as opposed to nocturnal. It's logically nonsensical to then say it's morally good to spend our waking hours during the day and that we have a right to do so.

If someone asked how you might describe man as an animal you might say that H. sapien is a social mammal, bipedal, sexually dimorphic, diurnal, omnivorous etc. What you wouldn't include would be alive, healthy and knowledgable.

If we are a social animal then all that means is that we are generally found in groups.

To say that man is inherently social is to say that being social is really good for him.

But that doesn't make it good in a moral sense.

Yes, it most certainly does. If man is denied social contact then that is bad for him because he will not thrive. Therefore, he has a right to be social. The words “good”, “bad” and “right” always indicate a moral judgment is being made.

It's good from an evolutionary perspective. Which certainly doesn't make it a right.

Evolution has naught to do with morality. I know you want to deflect the thread to your pet project, but we’ve already agreed that how we got to be the way we are really doesn’t matter.

Saying that we are a sociable animal is no more a moral position that saying that we are diurnal as opposed to nocturnal.

Agree and the same logic would apply. If man is inherently diurnal then it is really good for man to be diurnal. In order to thrive as a human being man ought to want what is really good. Therefore, man a moral right to be diurnal.

It's logically nonsensical to then say it's morally good to spend our waking hours during the day and that we have a right to do so.

Nope. It would be logically nonsensical to claim otherwise. See above.

If someone asked how you might describe man as an animal you might say that H. sapien is a social mammal, bipedal, sexually dimorphic, diurnal, omnivorous etc.

If you claim any of the above to be facts about human nature, ie., to be inherent desires or needs in man, then apply the same logic. You have now made my case that man has many objective moral rights.

What you [?] wouldn't include would be alive, healthy and knowledgable.

But I did include them. The question is why would you exclude them? Do you really think it is not good to be alive, healthy and knowledgeable?

 

[Bradskii]

If man is inherently diurnal then it is really good for man to be diurnal. In order to thrive as a human being man ought to want what is really good. Therefore, man a moral right to be diurnal.

Then I guess I have a moral right to have binocular vision. I guess I have a moral right to perspire. Or to have an opposable thumb. Or to have incisors. I have to say that 'a man has a moral right to be diurnal' is the weirdest concept of morality I have come across. I'm not often at a loss for a response. But in this case, I really don't know how to respond.

 

[stevevw]

This isn't about imposing culture. Not in the slightest. No-one is comparing cultures. I'm not interested in the slightest if something is culturally relevant to one group of people or not.

Then why did you make claims that another cultures practices are wrong if its not about comparing cultures. I said under relative morality for which western society supports there is no absolute moral truth independent of cultures.

You claimed that the Western view of morality is an absolute truth that stands beyond western borders enother to make the culture practicing female circumcision to be objectively wrong beyond cultural beliefs. That is imposing western morals if we are to believe there is no independent moral truth.

If you were to go to the other culture and proclaim your truth then that culture or tribe would see you as a trouble maker, out of step, trying to force your radical morals onto others. Ironocally just like Trans ideologues claim those denying Trans ideology are trouble makers.

This is only about harm. Do not cause harm uneccesarily. If you have a reason for doing so then present it. If it's not valid then the harm is not justified. 'It's culturally allowed' is not an acceptable argument.

Harm itself is a subjective and relative determination under relative morality. Its expressing a psychological belief of the culture and not a fact. The debate over trans ideology is a prime example in how two opposing sides both claim they have the best interests for Trans people in mind.

Human wellbeing is an assumption that has not been verified as a fact itself no matter how obvious, common sense, passionate or convincing a person claims it to be. Its a belief a feeling and not a fact in the world and people can be fooled by beliefs even to the point they feel absolutely right.

We know that doing no harm is better than harming someone. But what exactly is doing no harm. Thats a relative determination. An example of how relative morality may work. The West believes that African tribes who practice cutting female genitals (female circumcision) is morally wrong.

Other cultures including those within the western cultures believe cutting female genitals completely off as part of Trans ideological beliefs is immoral. If there is no absolute truth then how can anyone say that either culture is doing something morally wrong. They simply have a different belief that is true and right within their own culture.

Don't get me wrong I agree that there are moral truths> I just don't think a purely scientific or naturalistic determination works because one is about a description of the world and the other (morality) is about a prescription, what we should do. You can't equate the two without first assuming an intrinsic value which itself cannot be determined by facts.

It might work for some very extreme and obvious examples but it begins to break down when it comes to everyday situations. But people can also believe obvious wrongs are good like we have in the past with slavery, denying indigenous rights and womens Rights.

Thats because any moral truth is being determined. rationalised by humans who are fallible. If morality has the status to be a truth it needs to stand outside human determinations based on feelings and beliefs.

PS: And you do realize if you are right you are actually making a case for objective morality and therefore a transcedent moral lawgiver and against secular morality..

 

[Bradskii]

You claim that the Western view of morality is an absolute truth that stands beyond western borders and therefore proves the culture is behaving immorally in practicing female circumcision.

I have never done anything like that. Actions are to be determined whatever 'culture' one considers them to be from. This is not a discussion about culture. You really are making things up now. Please don't

An example of how relative morality may work. The West believes that African tribes who practice cutting female genitals (female circumcision) is morally wrong.

Other cultures including those within the western cultures believe cutting female genitals completely off as part of Trans ideological beliefs is immoral.

This is a monstrously grotesque comparison. No sane person could possibly consider that a medical procedure requested by a woman with full agreement between her, her support team and medical experts, carried out in a safe and sterile environment can possibly be compared to a young girl being forcibly held down while her genitals are cut away by whatever reasonably sharp instrument is available.

Talk some sense, man. Or this conversation is over.